ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Recent Disturbances

David Rutley: What discussions she has had with political leaders about recent disturbances in Northern Ireland.

Theresa Villiers: I have had regular discussions with the First Minister and Deputy First Minister and other political leaders in Northern Ireland about the disturbances of recent months. The protests should now end. A way forward that commands broadly based support can be found only through dialogue and working together.

David Rutley: In the light of the recent successful interception of four mortar bombs by the police in Northern Ireland, will my right hon. Friend tell the House what steps she is taking to counter the work of terrorists whose aim is to kill and maim innocent people?

Theresa Villiers: The attempted terrorist attack this week demonstrates how severe the terrorist threat continues to be in Northern Ireland. It was only through the highly effective action of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and its partners that mass casualties were averted. The Government remain vigilant on the threat and have included it as a tier 1 priority in their national security strategy.

Nigel Dodds: The interception of the mortar bomb attack prevented a devastating attack on Londonderry and saved lives. In the light of the string of attacks and attempted attacks from that particular quarter, will the Secretary of State tell us what extra resources she is going to give to the police and the security forces in Northern Ireland in the coming year to counter the dissident terrorist threat?

Theresa Villiers: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that shortly after taking office the coalition devoted an extra £200 million to national security priorities in Northern Ireland, which has been tremendously helpful to the PSNI, not least in enabling it to replace its Land Rover fleet. We will continue our discussions on the successor funding when that £200 million runs out, and we continue to do everything we can to support the PSNI and its partners, and the Northern Ireland Executive, in countering this threat.

Nigel Dodds: The Secretary of State will be aware that some of those involved in the dissident terrorist campaign in Northern Ireland who have been charged with the most serious offences, including murder, have been released on bail in recent days, while others who have been involved in the protests and who are likely to receive a non-custodial sentence have been remanded on bail. Does she understand the bewilderment of most ordinary people in Northern Ireland at that situation, and the anger that is perpetuated in the community by what is perceived to be this double standard?

Theresa Villiers: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that those are matters for the courts, not for me as Secretary of State and not for the police. I am afraid that the courts make their own decisions on those matters, taking into account the risk of reoffending.

Paul Murphy: The Secretary of State says that those are matters for the courts, and indeed they are, but the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) has referred to the huge challenges now facing Northern Ireland from the so-called new IRA and from the loyalist demonstrations. Does the Secretary of State agree that she must now have more than just regular discussions with political parties, and that she really needs a structure for those discussions with the Irish Government and with all the political leaders in Northern Ireland if we are to deal with those serious issues?

Theresa Villiers: Of course it is important that those discussions continue. I had a very helpful meeting with the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the Tánaiste a few weeks ago, and we hope to put another so-called quad meeting in the diary very shortly. Both Governments believe that it is important for a dialogue to occur on flags and symbols, and for progress to be made towards the shared future in Northern Ireland that everyone in the political leadership wants. It is essential that that should now be delivered.

Alasdair McDonnell: In view of the current political difficulties and the impasse on some issues, would the Secretary of State consider it useful to convene round-table discussions involving herself, the Irish Government and all the political parties in Northern Ireland?

Theresa Villiers: It is important for Northern Ireland’s political leadership to develop a process so that the leaders of all the political parties can work together on matters such as flags and identity. That is an important way of ensuring that the protests come off the streets and that we find a genuinely inclusive way to decide on these issues. The Belfast agreement gives guarantees on protecting identities of Irishness and Britishness, and it is now time for the political parties to work together to see how we can translate those guarantees into a sensible way of approaching issues around flags and symbols in Northern Ireland.

Naomi Long: I thank the Secretary of State for her comments to date. At a time when the PSNI is under extreme pressure and when the rule of law is under threat from loyalists and republicans, does she agree that it is hugely important that all
	political leaders in Northern Ireland give their unambiguous support to the rule of law and to the PSNI, and that they articulate within their communities the need to support those organisations and principles, rather than simply becoming a voice for dissent?

Theresa Villiers: I agree. I am firmly supportive of the PSNI, which does an outstanding job. It has dealt with these protests in a very sensible way, and it has faced difficult situations. Indeed, almost 150 of its officers have been injured, so it has my firm and unqualified support. I hope that it will enjoy that support from Northern Ireland’s political leadership as well.

Paul Goggins: In her recent discussions, has the Secretary of State been able to confirm that the amendments to the Crime and Courts Bill tabled by the Home Secretary, which would allow her to transfer lead responsibility for counter-terrorism to the National Crime Agency, will not apply in Northern Ireland and that the Chief Constable will remain in overall control of all counter-terrorism investigations and operations?

Theresa Villiers: The Home Secretary certainly agrees that if there were any suggestion of extending the NCA’s remit to national security matters in Northern Ireland, that could happen only with the consent of the Chief Constable of the PSNI. The primacy of the Chief Constable is retained to ensure consistency with the devolution of policing and justice.

Welfare Reforms

Chris Ruane: What discussions she has had with Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive on the Government’s proposed welfare reforms.

Tom Greatrex: What assessment she has made of the potential effect of the Government’s welfare reforms in Northern Ireland.

Michael Penning: Earlier this morning, I discussed these matters with the First Minister and Deputy First Ministers at the Joint Ministerial Committee. I am sure that the whole House would say that a simpler benefit system will reward those in work and the vulnerable in our society.

Chris Ruane: On 27 February, the Minister responsible for social development in Northern Ireland, Mr Nelson McCausland MLA, said:
	“I have said many times already that I have concerns about the potential impact of Welfare Reform on local people. I will continue to work with Ministers in Westminster to mitigate against the most negative impacts of these reforms.”
	Will the Minister tell us what he thinks the “negative impacts” of welfare reform in Northern Ireland are and what progress he has made in helping the Minister in Northern Ireland to address them?

Michael Penning: The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb) has been to Northern
	Ireland on many occasions and is working closely with the Northern Ireland Executive and with the particular Minister with whom I have also worked. The measures are going to be difficult, but we face the situation that work needs to pay and that under the present system it does not. In Northern Ireland, of all the areas of the United Kingdom, welfare desperately needs reform.

Tom Greatrex: One effect of the welfare reform changes in Northern Ireland is that, on the most recent figures, 98,000 children in Northern Ireland are now living in poverty. Indeed, the Belfast West constituency is the second highest in the whole of the UK in that respect. Following the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), will the Minister explain exactly what he is doing about that particular aspect, which does not necessarily have anything to do with people being in or out of work, but is having a distinctly negative impact on many Northern Ireland households?

Michael Penning: Child poverty was discussed this morning at the Joint Ministerial Committee, and it has been an aspiration for all of us, over many years, to get rid of it. The situation in Northern Ireland, however, is that too many people and families are completely reliant on welfare, and that unless we reform the system it will not be possible for them to get off benefits and into work, which must be the aspiration for all of us.

Vernon Coaker: I join the Secretary of State and the Minister in praising the bravery and success of the police in preventing a terrorist attack in Londonderry on Sunday night. As the right hon. Lady said, those who seek to destroy peace and progress will not succeed, but we have to remain vigilant to the threat they pose. On welfare reform, will the Minister tell my how many people in Northern Ireland will be adversely affected by the bedroom tax?

Michael Penning: That is obviously a matter for the Northern Ireland Executive, but we all want to make sure that the people who come to see us at our surgeries on a regular basis who are inappropriately housed or cannot be housed can be put in social housing if they need it. In Northern Ireland, between 2010 and 2012, the budget went up by 10.7%, with more than £500 million spent on housing benefit. We have to do something about that, while mitigating the effects on those in need.

Vernon Coaker: The “not me, guv” attitude will not work. According to the Chartered Institute of Housing, 66% of working age social tenants in Northern Ireland will be affected, and 32,000 people will lose out as a result of the bedroom tax. The Government have given no consideration to the specific issues about housing in Northern Ireland—from the type and scale of stock to the segregation in and between communities—so will the Minister urgently meet the Northern Ireland Executive and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to discuss the disastrous consequences of this policy?

Michael Penning: Well, that is the Labour party’s position. What we want to do is get people into housing that will be beneficial for them. Every week families come to the surgeries of Members throughout the House, and throughout the United Kingdom, and say to us, “I do
	not want to sleep on the floor any more, and I do not want my kids to sleep on settees.” How can we help them when others are living in one and two-bedroom properties although they do not need that excess capacity? What is the Labour party going to do about that? I expected the shadow Minister to ask about the very difficult security situation in Northern Ireland, but he has not done so today.

Jim Shannon: Is the Minister aware that there will be a £10 million a year deficit in housing benefit following the implementation of the bedroom tax, which will leave families in the Province in dire straits? Will he review the changes in the Northern Ireland block grant so that smaller homes and apartments can be built?

Michael Penning: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, who is a friend of mine, has adopted the Labour party “tax” mantra. This is not a tax. What we are trying to do is make the position fairer for all our constituents. It is true that capacity is an issue in Northern Ireland; the problem is that there are too many people in the wrong sort of housing, and we need to help them to get into the right sort.

Margaret Ritchie: Is the Minister aware that Northern Ireland has one of the highest levels of dependence on benefits in the United Kingdom, that a high proportion of its population have mental and physical disabilities, and that its provision for affordable child care is the lowest in the UK? Will he assist the efforts of the Minister in the devolved Department for Social Development—along with the Department for Work and Pensions—to secure mitigation measures other than those that have already been announced in relation to welfare reform in Northern Ireland?

Michael Penning: Of course I will continue to work closely with the Minister in the devolved Administration. However, the best way in which to help those who are receiving welfare benefits is to get them off benefits and into work as soon as possible.

Youth Unemployment

Alex Cunningham: What her policy is on youth unemployment in Northern Ireland; and if she will make a statement.

Andrew Gwynne: What her policy is on youth unemployment in Northern Ireland; and if she will make a statement.

Theresa Villiers: The Government’s efforts to reduce the largest deficit in UK peacetime history and deliver sustainable economic recovery are an important way of dealing with youth unemployment. Further specific measures to help young people in Northern Ireland to find jobs are the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Executive, with whom we are happy to work closely.

Alex Cunningham: Given that youth unemployment now stands at over 20%, does the Secretary of State not share Opposition Members’ sense of urgency about the need to get Northern Ireland’s young people back to
	work? We have proposed a bank bonus tax that would help to create 2,000 jobs for those young people. What specific things is the Government going to do?

Theresa Villiers: I will take no lectures from Labour on youth unemployment. Youth unemployment rose by a third—by 35%—under Labour in Northern Ireland, youth employment fell by nearly 10%, and economic activity among young people fell by 3%. We are determined to rebalance the Northern Ireland economy. Our deficit reduction plan is keeping interest rates low, which is vital for job creation and investment, and corporation tax is being reduced. We have also recognised the special circumstances of Northern Ireland by providing, on average, a higher block grant per head than is provided anywhere else in the United Kingdom.

Andrew Gwynne: Since it was established by the British and Irish Governments, the International Fund for Ireland has played an important role in facilitating and encouraging investment in projects that support communities, businesses and young people. What future role does the Secretary of State envisage for the IFI, and how can it help the Governments and the Northern Ireland Executive to tackle the scourge of youth unemployment in Northern Ireland?

Theresa Villiers: I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the IFI. It has done tremendous work in the past, and continues to do that work. I shall be happy to meet IFI representatives to discuss how we can work together more closely to address youth unemployment issues. I am sure that they will engage with Northern Ireland politicians who will travel to the United States for the St Patrick’s day commemorations in a week or so.

Laurence Robertson: The Secretary of State referred to corporation tax. Will she update the House on her discussions with the Treasury about the possibility of devolving to the Northern Ireland Assembly the power to set its own rate of corporation tax?

Theresa Villiers: I have had a number of very useful discussions with the Prime Minister and Chancellor on this important matter. The Prime Minister will meet the First and Deputy First Ministers shortly to discuss it further, before deciding on possible next steps.

Gregory Campbell: Youth unemployment in my constituency has increased significantly in the last year. Will the Secretary of State ensure that that figure is not added to by the closure of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency office in Coleraine, and will she speak with the relevant Transport Minister to make sure that those 200 jobs and their cost-effectiveness are preserved by bringing employment across to Northern Ireland?

Theresa Villiers: I am very much aware of the importance of this issue. I was in the Coleraine area only last week, and I have discussed this matter with the Transport Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond). He is aware of the concern felt in Northern Ireland, and he either met Alex Attwood for further discussions yesterday or will meet him today. It is important that he takes into account the views of Northern Ireland before he makes his decision.

Peter Hain: Instead of saying, “It’s not me, guv,” and shuffling responsibility for the terrible level of disaffection among unemployed young people in Northern Ireland, why does the Secretary of State not accept that it is her Government’s macro-economic policies that are causing this disaffection? With the marching season coming up and the loyalist disorder just past, this is a very toxic situation and she is just walking away from it and shuffling responsibility on to the Northern Ireland Executive.

Theresa Villiers: Not at all. The Government’s macro-economic policy is focused on dealing with the deficit and creating the right conditions for growth so we can start to resolve problems in relation to youth unemployment. That is why we are focusing on such matters as keeping interest rates low by dealing with the deficit and reducing corporation tax; why we are investing in broadband capacity—that is why Belfast and Londonderry are going to become part of our super-connected cities programme; why we are offering tax breaks for high-end TV, another growth area of industry in Northern Ireland; and why the Prime Minister is bringing the G8 to Northern Ireland, to showcase it to the world as a great place to do business.

Political Parties (Funding)

Thomas Docherty: What her policy is on the funding of political parties in Northern Ireland.

Michael Penning: In general, UK-wide party funding rules apply to Northern Ireland parties. However, the Electoral Commission cannot disclose information that relates to donations or loans to Northern Ireland parties. The Government are committed to making party funding more transparent, while ensuring donor identities are not released retrospectively.

Thomas Docherty: I am most grateful to the Minister of State for that answer. He will know there is cross-party consensus that political funding in Northern Ireland needs to be more transparent and accountable to the public. Will he therefore engage with all the political parties who choose to take their seats here, to ensure we make progress on this very important issue?

Michael Penning: Not only will I engage with all political parties that take their seats here, I will also engage with those that do not, because I think this is a very important issue. In the last couple of weeks, with the shadow Minister for the Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), we took through a statutory instrument that puts in place an extension until September next year. We hope to be in a better position next year, but we must protect those who may be vulnerable should they wish to donate to a political party.

William McCrea: For years this House has allowed the disgraceful situation to continue whereby Sinn Fein has been able to draw down tens of thousands of pounds of representative money without providing representation in this House. Discrimination against true democrats must be stopped. When will the Government grasp the nettle and stop this intolerable abuse and inequality of funding?

Michael Penning: I recently discussed this matter with the Leader of the House. This is a matter for the House, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will like to raise it with the Leader of the House. He might, perhaps, even get a debate on it.

Notification Requirements (Public Processions)

Mark Durkan: What consideration she is giving to bringing forward an amendment to the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 in relation to notification requirements as part of the proposed Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.

Theresa Villiers: Under the relevant legislation, anyone who is organising a parade must notify the Parades Commission. If they fail to do so, the parade is illegal and those who organise or participate in it are liable to criminal prosecution.

Mark Durkan: First, as the MP for the city in question, may I join in the Secretary of State’s earlier condemnation of the attempted murder attack and her commendation of the PSNI interception of it, averting devastation and death?
	Does the Secretary of State recognise that there was a gap in the understanding of the Parades Commission and the PSNI in relation to unnotified parades, and that that created a situation whereby we were getting dangerous notions, instead of responsible heads? Does she recognise that we, as legislators, may need to clarify the law on parades so that things are not destabilised during the forthcoming parades season?

Theresa Villiers: I am always open to considering ideas for making these decision-making processes work better, but the reality is that the problem over recent weeks has not been how the legislation is structured—the problem has been that people have not been obeying it. So it is vital, as we go into the parading season, that people respect the decisions of the Parades Commission, notifying it when a parade is contemplated.
	I also wish to echo the hon. Gentleman’s comments condemning unreservedly the horrific terrorist attack that his constituency was threatened with and that was narrowly averted by the swift action of the PSNI.

David Simpson: rose—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is even more popular than he knew. Let us hear from him.

David Simpson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What consideration has the Secretary of State given to bringing forward an amendment to the Northern Ireland Bill to remove the Parades Commission, which is seen by many as part of the problem and not the solution?

Theresa Villiers: It is vital that everyone recognises that the Parades Commission carries out an important function. It is the only lawfully constituted body in relation to parading and its decisions must be obeyed. We have always said that we are open to a reform of the system
	that would see a devolved solution. If the Northern Ireland political parties wish to put forward such a solution, we will consider it seriously.

Economic Growth

Neil Carmichael: What recent assessment she has made of the prospects for economic growth in Northern Ireland.

Theresa Villiers: The Government are committed to dealing with the deficit to create the right conditions for growth and economic recovery. We are working with the Executive to rebalance the Northern Ireland economy and boost the private sector.

Neil Carmichael: Does the Secretary of State agree that the important thing is to increase our exports for the UK as a whole? What role does she think Northern Ireland can play? What support can she give businesses in Northern Ireland to increase exports?

Theresa Villiers: I am working closely with Northern Ireland Ministers on this matter. There are huge opportunities this year to highlight Northern Ireland as a great place in which to invest, not least when the eyes of the world focus on County Fermanagh as the G8 summit comes to Northern Ireland, thanks to the personal decision of the Prime Minister. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. In my experience the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) rarely has difficulty in making himself heard, but there is a lot of noise at the moment and so, just in case, let us have a bit of quiet for Mr Stephen Pound.

Stephen Pound: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I am mortally obliged, sir.
	Some 111,000 working families receiving tax credits in Northern Ireland will lose out because of the Government’s tax on strivers. At the same time, the Government will give a tax cut for those earning £1 million and above. Does the Secretary of State think that economic growth will be helped or hindered by having Christmas in April for millionaires?

Theresa Villiers: The Government are fully committed to their welfare reform programme. We believe that welfare reform is essential to ensure that work always pays. We believe that it is deeply irresponsible for Her Majesty’s Opposition to continue to oppose all the reforms of welfare, which are designed to get the welfare bill down. That spiralled under their tenure of the economy.

Sammy Wilson: Like many other peripheral regions of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland has suffered most during this recession. We understand that reckless expenditure will damage the economy, but would the Secretary of State support the calls by all the regional administrations in the United Kingdom for a fiscal stimulus for capital expenditure, which will create short-term jobs and increase the economy’s capacity in the long run?

Theresa Villiers: As Finance Minister for the Northern Ireland Executive, the hon. Gentleman has options available to him within the block grant, which he receives under the Barnett arrangements; his grant remains considerably higher than the UK average. We are happy
	to continue to work with him and his colleagues in the Executive to generate inward investment for Northern Ireland and to ensure that our macro-economic policy, for example, on reducing corporation tax, is delivering the maximum benefits possible to rebalance the Northern Ireland economy.

Simon Hughes: Does the Secretary of State understand the strength of feeling from the political parties and the business community about the case for the reduction of corporation tax in Northern Ireland so that it can better compete with the Republic?

Theresa Villiers: I certainly understand that and I gather that the right hon. Gentleman had some lively discussions on that matter at the Alliance party conference. The Prime Minister is well aware of that perspective on corporation tax and I have discussed it with him and with the Chancellor and Deputy Prime Minister on a number of occasions.

McGurk’s Bar Bombing

Michael Connarty: When the most recent report of the investigation into the McGurk’s bar bombing will be made public.

Michael Penning: I understand that the most recent public report into that tragic event was published by the Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland in February 2011. I tried to place a copy in the House today but have been told that that is not possible, but it will be on the police ombudsman’s website and it is available now.

Michael Connarty: I am disappointed that the Minister of State is replying, as I would have thought that the Secretary of State would have taken the chance to repeat her apology to me and to the people affected by the McGurk’s bar bombing, which was the biggest bombing before Omagh. Do the Government accept that they cannot devolve the past and that their response should ensure that the suppression of witnesses that happened and the expert evidence that was given but then supplanted by lies and fabrication from the Northern Ireland police are not allowed to continue, so that we get to the truth about the collusion that took place before and after the bomb?

Mr Speaker: We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

Michael Penning: At the outset, let me pay tribute to the work that the hon. Gentleman has done over the years. I know I upset him the other week when I was slightly robust, but Mr Speaker has also rebuked me for being too soft and quietly spoken in the past couple of weeks. Let us put it this way: I served in the Province and am very proud to have done so. No bomb is acceptable and we must get to the truth.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Will the Minister of State acknowledge that I am a member of the second largest party of opposition in this House—that is, not the Labour party—and indicate what other reports by
	the Historical Enquiries Team are pending on other atrocities in Northern Ireland? Will he demonstrate that the HET must do more to reassure the majority community, as republicans murdered Protestants in Northern Ireland in cold blood and the HET should demonstrate that in its publications and findings?

Michael Penning: The issue has been raised with me on more than one occasion. I have continually looked into the evidence base and if the hon. Gentleman has evidence that such work is not taking place across the political divide in Northern Ireland, he should come and see me about it. He knows that he will get a welcome response.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Derek Twigg: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 6 March.

David Cameron: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others and in addition to my duties in this House I shall have further such meetings later today.

Derek Twigg: More than 2,500 households in Halton are affected by the bedroom tax. The chief executive of the National Housing Federation said this week:
	“The bedroom tax is ill-thought and unfair as thousands of disabled people will have no choice but to cut back further on food and other expenses in order to stay in their…homes.”
	Will the Prime Minister now drop this callous policy?

David Cameron: Let us be absolutely clear that this is not a tax. Let me explain to the Labour party that a tax is when someone earns some money and the Government take some of that money away from them—that is a tax. Only Labour could call a benefit reform a tax increase. Let me be clear to the hon. Gentleman: pensioners are exempt, people with severely disabled children are exempt and people who need round-the-clock care are exempt. Those categories of people are all exempt, but there is a basic issue of fairness. How can it be fair that people on housing benefit in private rented accommodation do not get a spare room subsidy, whereas people in social housing do? That is not fair and we are putting that right.

Tracey Crouch: Figures published yesterday show that over the past 20 years there has been a 137% increase in the number of deaths linked to Alzheimer’s disease. Does the Prime Minister agree that if we are to stop that awful condition from afflicting more people in the future, we must invest much more in preventing it and on research in particular? Will he outline to the House what the Government are doing to help support those with dementia and those who care for them?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend raises a point of concern to everyone in this House and everyone in this country, because no one knows when a relative could be afflicted by the condition. Her point is absolutely right: this is a disease and we should be thinking about it as a
	disease, as we do when we try to crack cancer, or heart disease, or strokes. That is why the Government are increasing the amount of money going into medical research so that we can try to prevent dementia in more cases. But there are many other things we need to do to improve the care in care homes and in hospitals and to ensure that we have more dementia-friendly communities so that we all learn how to deal with people who have dementia and how to help them lead lives that are as productive as possible.

Edward Miliband: I would like to ask the Prime Minister about an individual case that has been raised with me. John works in east London and is worried about what is happening to his living standards. His salary is £1 million and he is worried that under proposed EU regulations, his bonus may be capped at just £2 million. Will the Prime Minister tell us what he is going to do for John?

David Cameron: What I would say to John and everyone like John is that under this Government, bonuses are one quarter of what they were when the right hon. Gentleman was in the Treasury. I will take lots of lectures from lots of people, but I do not have to listen to the croupier in the casino when it all went bust.

Edward Miliband: I know the Prime Minister does not want to deal with the facts, but he sent his Chancellor to Europe yesterday in order to argue against the bonus cap, he says, presumably because he thinks it will be bad for the City of London, but who led the negotiations on the bonus cap? It was a Conservative Member of the European Parliament. What did she say? She said
	“we have managed to produce a deal that will strike the right balance for the majority of bankers who take responsible decisions.”
	Why are the Prime Minister and the Chancellor the only people who think it is a priority to fight for bigger bonuses for bankers?

David Cameron: As ever, the right hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. We have some of the toughest rules on bonuses and the toughest rules on transparency of any major financial centre anywhere in the world. When the croupiers were in charge, where was the transparency? There was none. Where were the rules? There were none. We are not going to listen to them, but there is an important issue here. There are some important British national interests. We are responsible for 40% of the EU’s financial services. Those industries are here in our country and we ought to make sure that they go on contributing to our Exchequer. We want to make sure that international banks go on being headquartered here in the UK. We think that matters. The right hon. Gentleman might want to just pose and play politics, but we care about these things. We also want to make sure that we can put in place the very tough ring-fence around our retail banks so that the complete shambles that he presided over can never happen again.

Edward Miliband: This is the man who in opposition said:
	“There will be a day of reckoning”
	for the bankers. Now he sends his Chancellor to fight against the bonus cap in Brussels. What did he say? Was he arguing that there should be more regulation of the
	banks? No.
	[Interruption.]
	Oh, he says he was. Let’s see. What did he say? David Cameron, “A Conservative Economic Strategy”, March 2008. I have it here. He said:
	“As a free-marketeer by conviction, it will not surprise you to hear me say”
	that the problem of the past decade has been
	“too much regulation”.
	There we have it. I think John the banker will take heart that the Prime Minister is straining every muscle to help him. Now, let me ask the right hon. Gentleman about the cases of the hundreds of thousands of disabled people who will lose an average of £700 a year because of his bedroom tax. Is he going to fight for them, like he is fighting for John the banker?

David Cameron: First of all, let us just remember what happened in 2008, when the right hon. Gentleman was sitting in government—the biggest banking bust in our history, the build-up of the biggest deficit in our history. All the mess that we have to deal with now was delivered by him and his henchmen in 2008. Before we go on to the spare room subsidy, let him get to his feet and apologise for the mess that he left in this country. Apologise!

Edward Miliband: Mr Speaker—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. I know that there are people who do not like it if Question Time runs over. Personally, it does not matter to me at all. The more noise and disruption there is, the longer it will take and the longer we will be here. It is very simple.

Edward Miliband: I notice that the Prime Minister has a new tactic, which is to ask me questions during our exchanges. All I can say is that it is good to see him preparing for opposition. The Home Secretary shakes her head. I am looking forward to facing her when they are in opposition.
	Let me ask the Prime Minister another question, because he did not answer the one about the bedroom tax. He talked earlier about the hardship fund. Let us look at the facts about the fund. Some £25 million of it has been allocated specifically to help disabled people hit by the bedroom tax, but how much do his own figures show he is taking from disabled people? The answer is £306 million. Will he admit that the vast majority of disabled people hit by his bedroom tax will get no help from his hardship fund?

David Cameron: First, the whole House, and the whole country, will note that there was no apology for the mess left by the Labour party.
	Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman that his figures on the spare room subsidy are completely wrong. The last thing he said before sitting down was that we are cutting the money going to disabled people. That is simply not the case. In 2009-10 the money spent on disability living allowance was £12.4 billion. By 2015 it will be £13.3 billion. There is no cut in the money going to the disabled. This Government are protecting that money, in spite of the mess he made. On the spare room subsidy, pensioners are exempt, people with disabled children are exempt and anyone who needs help around
	the clock is also exempt. As he is fond of reading out letters from constituents, let me read from one I got on this issue from a pensioner:
	“We are expected to find up to an extra £60 per month out of our pensions for having extra bedrooms.”
	Of course, they are not, because they are pensioners and are therefore exempt, but they have been terrified by the right hon. Gentleman’s completely irresponsible campaign.

Edward Miliband: I think what that means is that there was nothing in the briefing on the question I asked. Let me just make it clear, because the Prime Minister obviously does not understand it. His own impact assessment—he might like to read it, by the way—states that 420,000 disabled people will be hit by the bedroom tax by an average of £700 a year. That is £306 million. The money in the hardship fund allocated to disabled people is just £25 million. It is basic arithmetic. Will he admit that the vast majority of disabled people will get no help from the hardship fund and will be hit by his bedroom tax?

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman is completely wrong, because anyone with severely disabled children is exempt from the spare room subsidy—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. Members must not shout at the tops of their voices at the Prime Minister. The question has been asked, it was heard and the answer must be heard.

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman completely ignores the fact that anyone with severely disabled children and anyone who needs round-the-clock care are exempt from the spare room subsidy. The point he has to address is this: we are spending £23 billion on housing benefit. That is up by 50% over the past decade. That is £1,000 every year for every basic rate taxpayer. We say that it is time to reform housing benefit, and it is only fair that we treat people in social housing in the same way as we treat those in private rented housing. He has no proposals to do anything about welfare, other than to put up borrowing.

Edward Miliband: I think that we have established today that the Prime Minister does not understand his own policy. It is shameful to do this and not even understand the impact on the people of this country. He pulls out all the stops to defend the bankers and their bonuses, but he has nothing to say to the disabled people being hit by his bedroom tax. He stands up for the wrong people. It is no wonder his Back Benchers and the country think he is totally out of touch.

David Cameron: What we have heard today is what we hear every single Wednesday. The Opposition will not support one single change to welfare. They will not support reforms to housing benefit. They did not even support it when we took housing benefit away from people charging £100,000 a year. They would not support changes to child benefit. They will not support any changes to disability living allowance. They will not support changes to council tax benefit. They have opposed £83 billion of welfare saving. That is the point. They have to admit that their policy is to put up borrowing. They have nothing to offer, only debt, debt and more debt.

Mr Speaker: I call Mark Pritchard.

Mark Pritchard: Thank you, Mr Speaker. [Interruption.] Forgive me, Mr Speaker, I was taken by surprise and my question might surprise some Members even more. On 8 March we celebrate international women’s day. Will the Prime Minister join me in calling on the Indian and Pakistani Governments to do more to uphold the rights of women and to advance the gender agenda?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this. There are some particular issues we should really focus on. Female genital mutilation is a completely unacceptable practice that we need to deal with right across the world, but including here in the United Kingdom, and we will be making an announcement about that. We should also do more to crack down on the completely unacceptable practice of forced marriages. Forced marriages are still taking place right here with people involved from the United Kingdom, and we need to do more to put a stop to it.

Michael Connarty: I have been asked by the good people of Whitburn to open a food bank for West Lothian. I am very proud of these people who are pulling together as community, but I have to say that I carry a sense of absolute shame that this Government are driving people, even working people, more and more to have to use food banks. I can see people waving this away. It is a question of morality. The Government must surely look after the poor as well as look after the rich.

David Cameron: I welcome people making this contribution in our country, as the last Labour Government did by giving the organisation that founded food banks a prize and an award for its work. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that the use of food banks went up 10 times under Labour, but one thing Labour refused to do, which we have done, is to allow jobcentres to point people towards food banks if they need them. The last Labour Government were worried about the adverse publicity, and they put that worry before the needs of people up and down the country.

Chris Skidmore: Does the Prime Minister agree that we cannot borrow less by borrowing more, that we cannot deal with the deficit left by the last Labour Government by increasing our debts, and that the shadow Chancellor’s plan for doing so is both financially and morally bankrupt?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The policy of the official Opposition is to borrow less by borrowing more. It is completely incredible. That is why the Leader of the Opposition comes here week after week and asks all sorts of questions but will never mention his borrowing policy. It is an extraordinary point, but the Leader of the Opposition has a policy he is so embarrassed about that he cannot tell the House of Commons.

Graham Stringer: David Nicholson showed wilful and culpable ignorance while more than 1,000 people died needlessly in the NHS. How can the public have any confidence in the administration of the NHS while this man remains? Will the Prime Minister not sack him immediately?

David Cameron: What I would say about David Nicholson is that he has very frankly and very candidly apologised and acknowledged the mistakes that were made. That is an important point, because everyone has to think of their responsibilities with regard to the dreadful events that happened at the Staffordshire hospital, including the fact that part of the problem was people following a very top-down, target-led agenda which led to patient care being put on the back burner. David Nicholson has made his apology and wants to get on with his job of running an excellent national health service, and other people, frankly, should be thinking of their positions too.

Martin Horwood: Will the Prime Minister welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mike Thornton) and agree with me that even governing parties can win marginal by-elections if they stick by their leader through thick and thin and campaign hard for a stronger economy and a fairer society?

David Cameron: I will certainly welcome the new Member of Parliament for Eastleigh—for the period of this Parliament. I am sure that he will enjoy making a contribution to our debates. I note very carefully the rest of my hon. Friend’s question.

Debbie Abrahams: This time last week, the Prime Minister told me that he would not force GP commissioners to put health services out to tender. By the end of last week, doctors, nurses and the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, as well as nearly 250,000 members of the public, had said that they did not believe him. Was yesterday’s withdrawal of the NHS competition regulations down to his Government’s incompetence or to the fact that the public and professionals do not trust him and believe that he is about to privatise the NHS?

David Cameron: With respect to the hon. Lady, there is an attempt to create an entirely false argument. The aim is to ensure that the rules for procurement and diversity in the NHS fully respect the position that was put in place by the last Government and that has been repeated under this Government. We are putting that beyond any doubt. What I would say to her is what I said last week: what are we to be frightened of in making sure that in our brilliant NHS there can be a full contribution from private sector companies and voluntary and charitable bodies?
	That position was in the manifesto on which the hon. Lady stood at the last election. In case she has forgotten, I will remind her of what it said: “We will support”—[Interruption.] I thought that Labour Members would like to hear their manifesto. It said:
	“We will support an active role for the independent sector working alongside the NHS in the provision of care, particularly where they bring innovation—such as in end-of-life care and cancer services”.
	What happens is that when the Labour party goes into opposition, it becomes a wholly owned subsidiary of the trade union movement.

Jeremy Lefroy: A report to Monitor recommends the closure of acute services and most emergency and maternity services at Stafford. Will my
	right hon. Friend meet me and colleagues to discuss the serious impact that that would have on access to services for people throughout Staffordshire, including the two new Signals regiments that we will be welcoming in 2015?

David Cameron: I have discussed that issue many times with my hon. Friend and am happy to speak to him again. The trust continues to face serious financial challenges that are putting at risk its work to improve services for patients. As is required by the legislation, Monitor will consult the Secretary of State for Health and others before making the final decision to go ahead with the matter that my hon. Friend raises. If he wants to discuss it with me or the Secretary of State for Health, I am very happy to have that conversation.

Chi Onwurah: This week, the Centre for Economics and Business Research reported that one in 10 people in Newcastle has borrowed money to pay for food. From April, 20,000 of our poorest households will be asked to find up to £125 per month to pay for the council tax benefit cut and the bedroom tax. Will the Prime Minister confirm whether, at the same time, he will benefit personally from the millionaires’ tax cut?

David Cameron: First, let me address the issue of the spare room subsidy in Newcastle specifically. There are 9,000 people on social housing waiting lists. Across the country, 250,000 people are living in overcrowded accommodation and would love to have access to a house with more rooms, while 386,000 people are living in under-occupied housing. The Labour party does not want to recognise that reality and has absolutely nothing to offer in terms of reform.

Claire Perry: Last year, more than 100 women were killed by men in the United Kingdom. We know that domestic violence happens behind doors across the entire country. Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity of international women’s day to pay tribute to the outstanding work of Wiltshire police in trialling new ways of reducing this appalling crime and to the victim support centre in Devizes, which provides services for those who suffer in my constituency?

David Cameron: I am happy to do that. Fighting domestic violence is an important part of international women’s day, as my hon. Friend says. I commend not only the police in Wiltshire, but the local authority because it has done very good work to bring all the agencies together to ensure that there is a joined-up approach to cracking this difficult problem which, as she says, has often been hidden from view.

Ronnie Campbell: A recent report by the TUC suggested that wages in this country have been depressed by 3% since you came to power. Sorry, I meant the Tories, not you, Mr Speaker. Given that fact and the cuts to welfare, why is it that bankers, spivs and speculators can get away with stuffing their pockets with £50 notes under the guise of bonuses? When will the Prime Minister get a grip of the fat cats? If he is not going to get a grip, he should let my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) into his seat and he will get a grip.

David Cameron: I remind the hon. Gentleman that when his hon. Friends were in charge, the bonuses were higher, the banks were going bust and there was no proper regulation. That is why we are dealing with the mess—[Interruption.] He can try and wave it away, but the right hon. Members for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) and for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) were sitting in the casino when the wheels stopped spinning and the country nearly went bust.

Andrew Selous: Does the Prime Minister welcome the action taken today by the Office of Fair Trading to ensure that payday lenders behave responsibly and fairly?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend raises an important case because a number of payday lenders have been behaving in a completely irresponsible way. The OFT is putting 50 firms on notice over their behaviour, and requiring them to take specific actions or face fines or have their licences revoked. The OFT is also consulting on referring the entire sector to the Competition Commission. Action is being taken and I commend the OFT for what it has done.

Sarah Champion: Rotherham college of arts and technology has just had a cut of 280 places for 16 to 18-year-olds. That is a 10% cut, despite Rotherham being a youth unemployment hot spot. With rising youth unemployment and a flatlining economy, why is the Prime Minister denying the young people of Rotherham an education? Will he explain why he is cutting taxes for millionaires while young people have no future?

David Cameron: Let me just tell the hon. Lady that in her region, employment is up by 21,000 this quarter, and by 74,000 since the election. We have taken 192,000 people in her region out of tax altogether, and youth unemployment has fallen since the election.

Julian Sturdy: Like many others I welcome last week’s figure showing that annual net migration has fallen by a third since the general election. Does the Prime Minister agree that that shows that the Government are ending uncontrolled immigration while the Labour party has opposed every single step we are taking to bring it down?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a worthwhile point and we have taken action right across the board to deal with the completely unacceptable situation we inherited. Under the last Government, net migration ran at more than 200,000 people a year, which meant 2 million over a decade. That is two cities the size of Birmingham coming and staying in our country under their completely busted and bankrupt system. We have cut that net migration by a third by taking a series of steps, none of which the Opposition have supported. We hear that tonight we are going to get one of those fake apologies from the Leader of the Opposition. I suspect it will be every bit as real as his completely fake apology for the mess he left the economy in.

Steve Reed: After the riots the Prime Minister offered people in Croydon reassurances about public safety. Under the latest Tory
	proposals, however, every police station in Croydon North will close down and there will be fewer police officers than the wholly inadequate number that existed immediately after the riots. Is that another broken promise?

David Cameron: First, the hon. Gentleman’s figures are wrong. The number of neighbourhood police officers in London is up from 895 to 3,418. Crime is down in the Met, and he should welcome that rather than criticise it.

Bob Russell: The Lord said, “Go forth” and in Eastleigh Labour came fourth. The Prime Minister has observed that UKIP is a party of
	“nutcases, fruitcakes and closet racists”
	yet his Deputy Chairman says that the Conservatives should form an electoral pact with UKIP. How are the talks going?

David Cameron: First, I commend my hon. Friend on his splendid waistcoat. I am sure that if he reveals it a little further we will see that—yes, all right; enough already. It was a good, honest and fair fight in Eastleigh, but I want to be absolutely clear that the party that is meant to challenge as the Opposition in our country went precisely nowhere.

Russell Brown: My constituents in Dumfries and Galloway are demanding that big businesses pay their full taxes. Likewise, they are determined that individuals should pay all their taxes. The Prime Minister has said that he will pay all taxes due in the proper way. Next month, will that include any tax at the new 45p rate, which he has cut from 50p?

David Cameron: First, I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman supports the Government’s G8 initiative on tax transparency, on which we are going to make some real progress. The reason for replacing the 50p rate with the 45p rate is that the 50p rate was not raising proper money. Indeed, it raised £7 billion less. That is probably why for 10 years in office the Labour party never put it in place. That is also why under this Government the 45p rate will be a higher rate than ever it was when the two croupiers were sitting in the casino.

Andrew Bridgen: The widely disputed economic benefits of HS2 may or may not be realised in 20 years’ time. However, the blight, fear and anxiety the project generates hit my constituency on 28 January with the announcement of the extended route. I now have constituents who cannot sell their houses, businesses uncertain about their future and the potential loss of a £500 million private sector investment set to generate 7,000 jobs in 2016. Can my right hon. Friend ensure that representatives of HS2 visit my constituency to address the real concerns of my constituents about this project?

David Cameron: I am very happy to make sure that what my hon. Friend asks for happens. I quite understand that the launch of a project such as HS2 causes a lot of local concern and unease. That is why we are putting in place such a large national consultation and will put in place a very generous compensation scheme. If we are to win in the global race economically, we must ensure that we invest in new infrastructure,
	whether roads and bypasses, bridges, tunnels or, indeed, railways including high-speed rail. The rest of the world is getting on board the high-speed rail revolution and it is right that we should too.

Elfyn Llwyd: Giving an extra £150 million to local authorities to streamline adoption services and taking the exact sum out of the care sector’s early intervention grant seems to be a classic example of giving with one hand and taking away with the other. In adopting that approach, is not the Prime Minister acting in a manner more usually associated with his coalition partners?

David Cameron: I do not accept that. It is important that we make progress with rates of adoption in our country. Far too many children are left for far too long in care when we know that they could be adopted into loving homes. Taking some of that money, and really encouraging local authorities to raise their game and improve what they do, can transform the life chances of other people who would be stuck in care. We all know that the state is not a good parent, and we want to see more children adopted more quickly, so more can grow up in a loving home.

John Howell: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the news that new car sales were up 8% in February?

David Cameron: I am happy to join my hon. Friend in that. The fact is that the economy is rebalancing. We are seeing that in the export figures to some of the fastest growing countries in the world. We see it in the fact that 1 million more people are in private sector jobs. We see it in the fact that the rate of new business creation is the fastest now that it has ever been in our history. We see it in the fact that our economy employs more people now than it has ever done in our history. There is still a long and difficult road to travel, but the deficit is down by a quarter and we are taking the steps we need to take to get the economy moving. But as ever, we have nothing constructive from the Opposition.

Stella Creasy: I am delighted to hear the Prime Minister say that he agrees that the payday loan industry is irresponsible. Will he now therefore commit to doing the one thing we know would make a difference and cap the charges of legal loan sharks—yes or no?

David Cameron: As I have said, the most important thing to do today is to welcome what the Office of Fair Trading is doing, which is putting those companies on notice. It is worth making the point that without an effective regulated sector, there are far more dangers from loan sharks, which is the point that the hon. Lady makes.

George Freeman: This week, the 45 million people of Kenya, one of the fastest emerging markets in which the UK is the biggest trade partner, went to the polls to elect a new Government under a new constitution. Yesterday I came back from the funeral in Kenya of Dr Anthony King, the young, British conservationist, world-renowned in the fight against poaching, who was tragically killed last week.
	Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to join me in sending our condolences to Dr King’s family and our support to the people of Kenya in showing the power of democracy, justice and the rule of law?

David Cameron: I commend my hon. Friend on raising this issue and I join him in paying tribute to
	Anthony King. I know that my hon. Friend travelled to Kenya to speak at his funeral, and it is right that he did so. We all want to see proper, free and fair elections completed, counted and finished in Kenya and a proper democratically elected Government in that country, and to make sure that there is justice when dreadful events such as this take place.

Syria

William Hague: With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the crisis in Syria.
	The time has come to announce to the House necessary developments in our policy, and our readiness to develop it further if the bloodshed continues. Two years after it began, the conflict has reached catastrophic proportions. Ten thousand people have died since I last updated the House in early January. That means that more people have died in the first two months of this year than in the whole of the first year of the conflict. The total estimated death toll is now more than 70,000. The regime has used Scud ballistic missiles against civilian areas, and the UN commission of inquiry for Syria has found evidence of grave human rights violations, war crimes and crimes against humanity, including massacres, torture, summary executions and a systematic policy of rape and sexual violence by the regime’s forces and its militia.
	A year ago, 1 million people needed humanitarian aid inside Syria. That figure is now up to 4 million people, out of a total population of 21 million. Forty thousand people are fleeing Syria each week; three quarters of them are women and children. The number of refugees has increased thirtyfold in the past 10 months, and today the sad milestone of 1 million refugees has been reached. The population of Lebanon, which I visited two weeks ago, has risen by 10% owing to the influx of destitute people. This is a desperate situation of increasingly extreme humanitarian suffering.
	There is no sign that the Assad regime currently intends to enter into a genuine political process. It appears to believe that it can defeat its opponents militarily, and it counts on being shielded by some countries at the United Nations Security Council. It will be necessary to turn each of those calculations on its head if the conflict is to come to a peaceful end.
	Securing a diplomatic breakthrough remains, of course, our objective. Last week, I discussed Syria with the new US Secretary of State John Kerry here in London, and with other close partners in a core group meeting of the Friends of the Syrian People in Rome. In Rome, I met President al-Khatib of the Syrian National Coalition, and welcomed his brave announcement that the National Coalition is open to direct talks with members of the Assad regime. We continue our efforts to develop common ground with Russia. I will have talks with Russian deputy Foreign Minister Bogdanov later this afternoon, and next week with Foreign Minister Lavrov, also here in London. At the end of January, the UN and Arab League special representative for Syria, Lakhdar Brahimi, set out a credible plan for the establishment of a transitional authority in Syria. We are working with allies to achieve, if at all possible, Security Council backing for a transition process, and I am meeting Mr Brahimi again this afternoon.
	However, the fact remains that diplomacy is taking far too long and the prospect of an immediate breakthrough is slim. Each month of violence in Syria means more death, wider destruction, larger numbers of refugees and bloodier military confrontation. The international community cannot stand still in the face of this reality. Our policy has to move towards more active efforts to prevent the loss of life in Syria. That means stepping up our support to the opposition and thereby increasing
	the pressure on the regime to accept a political solution. What we face is not a choice between diplomacy on the one hand and practical assistance on the other; helping the opposition is crucial to bringing about a political transition and saving lives, and both must be pursued together. We will always be careful in how we develop our policy, but our readiness to develop it further should be unmistakable, particularly to the Assad regime.
	What happens in Syria is vital to our national interest for three reasons. The first is the growth of extremism. We should never forget that the vast majority of those opposing the regime are ordinary people trying to defend their communities and gain freedom for their country. However, Syria today has become the top destination for jihadists from anywhere in the world, and we are already seeing a rise in sectarian violence and attacks using improvised explosive devices, including car bombs. We cannot allow Syria to become another breeding ground for terrorists who pose a threat to our national security.
	Secondly, the crisis is undermining the peace of the region. On top of the refugee crisis, there have been reports of clashes on the Iraqi border and in Lebanon. We are increasingly concerned about the regime’s willingness to use chemical weapons and have warned the Assad regime that the use of chemical weapons would lead to a serious response from the international community. Those who order the use of chemical weapons and those who use them will be held to account. There is also credible information that, through its Revolutionary Guard corps, Iran is providing considerable military support to the regime, including personnel, equipment, weapons and direct financial assistance.
	Thirdly, we and our allies must always be prepared to respond to situations of extreme humanitarian distress. Our foreign policy is inseparable from upholding human rights, protecting lives and supporting international law. We must assist the genuine moderate and democratic forces in Syria who are in dire need of help and who feel abandoned by the international community. The longer this conflict goes on, the more human suffering, persecution of minorities, radicalisation and sectarian conflict there will be.
	Despite these three compelling arguments, there will still be those who say that Britain should have nothing to do with Syria, but we cannot look the other way while international law and human rights are flouted, we cannot step back from a crisis that could destabilise the heart of the middle east, and it would be the height of irresponsibility to ignore potential threats to our own security. I want to explain to the House, therefore, the next step in increasing our support to the Syrian people, and I emphasise that there may well have to be further steps.
	We have contributed nearly £140 million in humanitarian aid so far. This is funding food, clean drinking water, medical assistance, blankets and shelter for many tens of thousands of people. We are supporting the Syrian National Coalition’s own efforts to deliver aid inside Syria, and we will seek new ways to relieve the humanitarian crisis and to expand access to aid across the country, while preparing to help a future Government deal with the aftermath of the conflict.
	We have also committed a total of £9.4 million so far in non-lethal support, such as power generators and communications kit, to the Syrian opposition, civil
	society and human rights defenders. We have trained more than 300 Syrian journalists and activists and are providing satellite communication devices to document human rights violations and abuses.
	I informed the House in January that we would seek to amend EU sanctions on Syria to open up the possibility of further assistance if the situation deteriorated. On Thursday, we finalised with our European partners a specific exemption to the EU sanctions to permit the provision of non-lethal military equipment and all forms of technical assistance to the Syrian National Coalition where it is intended for the protection of civilians.
	This is an important advance in our ability to support the opposition and help save lives. Such technical assistance can include assistance, advice and training on how to maintain security in areas no longer controlled by the regime; on co-ordination between civilian and military councils; on how to protect civilians and minimise the risks to them; and on how to maintain security during a transition. We will now provide such assistance, advice and training.
	We intend to respond to the opposition’s request to provide equipment for search and rescue operations and for incinerators and refuse collection kit to prevent the spread of disease. We will help local councils to access funds and equipment to repair electricity and water supplies to homes, and we will respond to the opposition’s request for further water purification kits and equipment to help civilian political leaders operate and communicate.
	We will also now provide new types of non-lethal equipment for the protection of civilians, going beyond what we have given before. In conjunction with the National Coalition, we are identifying the protective equipment that will be of most assistance to them and likely to save the most lives. I will keep the House updated, but it will certainly include, for instance, armoured four-wheel drive vehicles to help opposition figures move around more freely as well as personal protection equipment including body armour.
	We will now also be able to provide testing equipment to the opposition to enable evidence gathering in the horrific event of chemical weapons use. We will also fund training to help armed groups understand their responsibilities and obligations under international law and international human rights standards. Any human rights violations or abuses are unacceptable on all sides. We have allocated nearly £3 million in funding this month to support this work and an additional £10 million thereafter, comprising $20 million in non-lethal equipment and practical support for the Syrian opposition and civil society on top of the $60 million announced by the United States. We hope other countries will offer similar assistance.
	The Cabinet is in no doubt that this is a necessary, proportionate and lawful response to a situation of extreme humanitarian suffering and that there is no practicable alternative. All our assistance will be carefully calibrated and monitored, as well as legal, and will be aimed at saving life, alleviating this human catastrophe and supporting moderate groups. The process of amending the EU sanctions regime in this way was difficult, and the decision came down to the wire. We persisted with it because we believe it is preferable to have a united EU approach. In our view, if a political solution to the crisis in Syria is not found and the conflict
	continues, we and the rest of the European Union will have to be ready to move further, and we should not rule out any option for saving lives. In case further necessary amendments to the EU sanctions regime prove impossible to agree, we stand ready to take any domestic measures necessary to ensure that core sanctions on Syria remain effective.
	This is a situation in Syria where extreme humanitarian distress and growing dangers to international peace and security must weigh increasingly heavily in the balance against other risks. With the crisis now becoming one of major dimensions by any standard—with millions of people on the move, many tens of thousands dead, tens of thousands more in daily danger of losing their lives, the world’s most volatile region in growing tension and political deadlock that has endured for two years—our policy cannot be static nor our position indifferent. A situation of growing gravity requires a steadily more active approach, learning the lessons of previous conflicts and always emphasising the need for a political and diplomatic resolution of the crisis, but crucially also being prepared to use increased pressure and levers to try to bring that about. We will continue to keep the House properly informed as we press for an end to the conflict, provide life-saving assistance and work to ensure that Syria has the political transition its people need and deserve, and which they have now waited far too long to see achieved.

Douglas Alexander: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for advance sight of it this morning.
	This month marks the second anniversary of the start of this brutal conflict. As the Foreign Secretary rightly pointed out to the House, two years on, the death toll is now estimated at some 70,000 and is rising by the day. Only today the United Nations announced that the number of Syrian refugees had now reached 1 million. Half are children. More than 400,000 have become refugees since 1 January 2013 alone. More than 7,000 are now reported to be fleeing every day. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees today declared:
	“Syria is spiralling towards full-scale disaster”.
	As the number of casualties rises, frustrations too have been growing. That has understandably led to renewed calls for the international community to do more. The primary responsibility for the crisis rests with Assad and his regime, but does the Foreign Secretary accept that the deteriorating situation in Syria also represents an abject failure by the international community and that it shares a collective responsibility for that failure? It is right that efforts must now intensify, but the key issue is the breadth of those efforts, how they are channelled and how likely they are to deliver results.
	There are some vital areas where the international community must better co-ordinate and target its efforts. First, on international diplomatic efforts, the stalemate at the United Nations Security Council is more than just frustrating; it is deplorable. The case must be made to Russia and China that supporting or aiding Assad not only harms Syria but harms their own interests, and indeed their standing in the wider region. Will the Foreign Secretary set out what representations he will
	make to Foreign Minister Lavrov when he is in London next week on this issue and the prospects of a change of position in the Security Council?
	Secondly, 11 separate rounds of sanctions against Syria have already been agreed. The issue at present is not necessarily new sanctions, but effective enforcement of existing ones. Given the Foreign Secretary’s recent visit to Lebanon, does he agree that more must be done to ensure that countries fully comply with the existing sanctions to which they have already signed up?
	Thirdly, on international accountability, the responsibility for the crisis primarily rests with the Assad regime, as I have made clear, and the perpetrators must ultimately be held to account. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that efforts to collect and publish the names of Syrian army officers ordering the ongoing atrocities are vital? Such efforts could serve as a clear signal of intent that those officers will face the full force of international justice for their crimes—and of course that includes the use of chemical weapons.
	Fourthly, on the issue of peace talks, Ahmed Moaz al-Khatib, the leader of the Syrian National Coalition, last month reportedly offered to engage in talks on a political settlement without demanding Assad’s resignation. In an interview last week, Assad claimed that he was
	“ready to negotiate with anyone, including militants who surrender their arms.”
	Neither of those offers has yet been accepted and nor can we make a judgment as to the spirit in which they were intended, but will the Foreign Secretary offer his assessment of whether they constitute even a slight narrowing of the gap between the Syrian authorities and opposition forces?
	Finally, let me turn to the central issue of the UK’s support for the Syrian opposition and the announcements in today’s statements. It is right that the UK is at the forefront of co-ordinating international efforts to deliver aid to those most in need, both within and beyond the Syrian borders, and I welcome recent announcements to that effect. Beyond humanitarian assistance, when it comes to our support for the Syrian opposition forces, it is vital that all our support must continue to be targeted and accountable if it is to be effective.
	The Foreign Secretary has today said that the Government will move towards
	“more active efforts to prevent the loss of life in Syria.”
	It is right that the international community must increase its efforts, but it is vital that the parameters of those efforts are clearly set out, defined and understood. Indeed, on this issue, the Foreign Secretary’s statement at times raised more questions than answers as to the real direction he is suggesting for British Government policy.
	The Foreign Secretary has today spoken of the amendments to the EU arms embargo. I welcome the fact that those changes were collectively agreed at the EU Foreign Affairs Council. Those amendments were focused on ensuring that the right to non-lethal equipment and technical assistance could be delivered to opposition forces, but the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for East
	Devon (Mr Swire), seemed to add confusion to an already complex issue when he told the House on Monday that this
	“is not about lifting any arms embargo.”
	However, he also said that the recent amendments to the existing EU arms embargo were about
	“ensuring that all options are on the table and that EU countries have maximum flexibility to provide the opposition with all necessary assistance to protect civilians.”—[Official Report, 4 March 2013; Vol. 559, c. 674-76.]
	Given those statements, it is understandable that there is some confusion over the Government’s position that requires further clarification. Will the Foreign Secretary say more about the next steps that he mentioned in his statement? Will he confirm whether the Government will push for an EU arms embargo to be lifted? Will he also set out what, if any, further amendments to the embargo he will call for?
	The Foreign Secretary has recently admitted that, when it comes to lifting the arms embargo, the risk of arms falling into the wrong hands is
	“one of the reasons we don’t do it now.”
	We agree that that risk is, indeed, very serious, so will he set out what would have to change on the ground in Syria for him to change his view on the relative risks involved in such a strategy? Does he accept the reality that today’s Syria is replete with arms, and does he also accept the great difficulties involved in guaranteeing the end use of weapons, given the lack of clarity today about the identity, intent and, indeed, tactics of some of the rebel forces? Does he accept that it is perfectly possible that, if Europe or, indeed, the west more generally, were to decide to arm the rebels, Russia or, indeed, Iran, which he referenced in his remarks, would simply increase its provision of arms to the Assad regime? Rather than pushing for the EU arms embargo to be relaxed, amended or lifted altogether, may I urge the Foreign Secretary to direct his efforts towards getting the Russians and Chinese to agree to impose a UN-mandated arms embargo? This would undeniably be the most effective way of cutting off a key lifeline to the Assad regime that it is currently relying on.
	Curiously, having previously mentioned the fact that al-Qaeda is known to be operating in Syria, the Foreign Secretary was silent on that issue in his remarks today. In the light of potential increased UK support for the opposition forces, will he set out the British Government’s assessment of the present level of activity by al-Qaeda and related jihadist groups in Syria?
	The Foreign Secretary spoke about the Syrian National Coalition, but is he able to give any assurances about the degree of authority and control exercised by the SNC over the wide range of opposition forces operating on the ground?

Mr Speaker: Order. I am mildly alarmed by my sight of a further full page of text in front of the right hon. Gentleman, but I know he will put my mind at rest when he tells me that, in fact, it relates to something entirely different and he does not intend to deal with it.

Douglas Alexander: One of my missions is to always seek to put your mind at rest, Mr Speaker, so I will endeavour to keep my remarks as short as possible. In my own defence, I would simply say that, by way of introduction,
	I indicated that the Foreign Secretary’s statement prompted more questions than it answered. I am, however, mindful of your view, Mr Speaker, so I will conclude shortly.
	I understand that the frustrations of Government Members are growing, but a strategy born of frustration is less likely to deliver than one based on clear thinking and strategic insight. Surely the priority now for Britain should be to work to unify the Syrian opposition, not to arm it. The continuing loss of life underlines the fact that Syria needs to see a de-escalation and a political resolution. Although the Government have our support for their actions to provide the humanitarian and non-lethal assistance to Syria announced today, it is far from clear that taking steps to intensify this conflict in the months ahead would do anything to reduce the present level of violence being suffered by the Syrian people.

William Hague: The right hon. Gentleman correctly draws attention, as I have done, to the extent of the human suffering. The fact that the United Nations has launched the largest ever financial appeal for humanitarian assistance underlines the catastrophic scale of that suffering. We must all remember that that is the background to the situation and to deciding what we have to do.
	The right hon. Gentleman made some recommendations towards the end of his remarks, some of which we have done, including work to unify the Syrian opposition, which, of course, is what we did for many months. They have been unified, to the extent that it can be practically achieved, in the Syrian National Coalition and we have recognised that group as the legitimate representative of the Syrian people. I do not suppose that any opposition or political grouping will be perfect in the eyes of this or any other country, but I do not believe that there will be a better attempt or greater success at unifying the Syrian opposition than the national coalition.
	It would be wonderful if some of the right hon. Gentleman’s other recommendations could be achieved, including Russian and Chinese agreement to impose an arms embargo of the whole world on Syria. We would, of course, support that—we will go over this ground in our meetings with the Russians this afternoon and next week—but I have not seen any prospect of Russia agreeing to such an arms embargo. It is a good thing to wish for, but in practical, diplomatic terms there is no possibility at the moment of it being achieved. That is the background to the decisions that we have to make. Many things would be far preferable, such as an immediate agreement on a negotiated political transition in Syria.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked, rightly, how seriously we should take the offers to negotiate. Having talked to President al-Khatib of the National Coalition last week, I believe not only that his offer is sincere but that he would love it to be taken up and that he really would negotiate with members of the regime without prior insistence on the departure of Assad. However, President Assad’s insistence during his weekend interview that the regime is ready to negotiate is something that we have heard for two years but that has never turned into actual substance. Of course, we will discuss with Mr Brahimi again this afternoon whether those statements can be used to bring both sides closer together. It is part of his job to try to do that. The evidence of the past two years, however, is that, in current circumstances, offers to negotiate by the regime are not sincere, are not followed up and do not lead to the sort of progress that we all want to see.
	It is against that background of diplomatic deadlock and political stalemate while tens of thousands die that I argue that we have to do what we can in a very cautious, considered and clearly thought-out way to try to change that situation and to save human lives as best we can, working at all times with our partners and allies, including those in the Arab world. There is a meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the Arab League today.
	We will continue to use every diplomatic effort, but the situation that the right hon. Gentleman and I are describing cannot remain static. He is quite right to say that the international community has been an abject failure collectively. The United Nations Security Council has not shouldered its responsibilities. We have tried many times to put that right, but our resolutions have been vetoed. We have been working in the last month since Mr Brahimi’s last briefing to the Security Council to find a new common way forward for the council—we will discuss that again with the Russians in the coming hours—but that common ground has not emerged in a month of discussions behind the scenes in New York.
	Given that situation, we all have to ask ourselves whether we are going to hold our policy completely static or show that we are prepared to change as the situation deteriorates—reluctantly perhaps, and cautiously at all times. I argue that we must be prepared to show an increased level of support for the opposition, and that it has to take a practical form if we are to exert any pressure on the regime—and, indeed, on Russia as well—to successfully negotiate on this matter. The parameters have, I hope, been clearly set out in my statement. They are clearly set out in the amendment to the United Nations arms embargo. It is amended, not lifted. The arms embargo remains in place; these are specific exemptions for non-lethal military equipment and for technical assistance for the protection of civilians. I have just given examples of what that means in practice.
	As for the future, the EU sanctions have now been rolled over, with that amendment, for three months. There will therefore be a further discussion in May about the renewal of such sanctions, and the Government—and every Member of this House—will be able to form their views on what we should do, in whatever situation we have arrived at in May, about further amendments to the embargo, if they are necessary. I think the parameters are clear. The policy is clear, and above all I want to make it clear that its direction is clear: we must be prepared to do more in a situation of such slaughter and suffering, and a more static policy would not measure up to the gravity of the situation.

Malcolm Rifkind: While I welcome the tone of the Foreign Secretary’s speech and the specific measures that he has announced, I regret to say that I cannot see how any of them will have any serious prospect of reducing the length of the conflict or preventing the massacre of tens of thousands more Syrians. Will he accept that, until such time as the Syrian opposition have the military equipment that will enable them to defeat the Assad regime and thereby bring the conflict to an end earlier than would otherwise be the case, we will continue to see tens of thousands of people being killed and the extremists in the opposition benefiting from that delay? What would the Foreign
	Secretary have to be persuaded of, in order to accept that giving military support to the opposition in a controlled and responsible way is indeed necessary?

William Hague: What I—and, I suspect, most of the House—would have to be persuaded of is that there was absolutely no alternative remaining. My right hon. and learned Friend has put the case—for a long time, actually—for going much further than I have proposed today in regard to the arming of the opposition movements in Syria by western countries. The difficulties involved in doing that have partly been set out by the right hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander), but we also have to recognise that that conflict in Syria is already militarised. Opposition groups have access to substantial quantities of weapons, and those weapons are already inside Syria. There is such a flow of weapons. I therefore believe that it is right for the development of our policy to be graduated, for us to show our readiness to deliver increased assistance and for the European countries and the United States to be willing to amend our policy if the situation continues to deteriorate, but in a way that will command general support and that will pose the least danger to the increased militarisation of the conflict. That is why I think this is the right balance to strike, rather than moving to the position that my right hon. and learned Friend has consistently advocated.

Jack Straw: Would it be a fair summary of our position to say that we are now providing every kind of assistance to the military forces of the opposition, short of the explosives, guns and bullets that actually do the killing? I have no objection to that; I think it is essential. In my judgment, the Foreign Secretary is right not to rule out the option of direct lethal military supplies, but would he acknowledge that the strategic diplomatic consequences of any such decision, and the degree to which we could get bogged down in a kind of cold war or proxy war, really need to be thought through very carefully indeed before we make any such positive decision?

William Hague: Yes, I very much agree with the right hon. Gentleman. He accurately characterises the position, although it is perhaps putting it too strongly to say that we are providing “every kind of assistance” short of lethal equipment. We are providing the assistance that I have set out today, and we will provide other assistance of that nature for the protection of civilians. That is an important requirement in the exemption to the UN arms embargo, and we will interpret it exactly. The assistance has to be for the protection of civilians. So the right hon. Gentleman went a bit too far in his characterisation of the position. He is right, however, to say that it would be a bigger and further step to decide to send lethal equipment. We have taken no decision to do that, and we have no current plans to do that, but it is necessary to be clear that in a situation of this gravity, with its implications for the peace of the whole region, we cannot rule out options. We cannot definitively rule that out. That was the thrust of his question.

Menzies Campbell: My right hon. Friend gives a compelling analysis of the deteriorating situation in Syria, and the measures that
	he has announced should be not only accepted but welcomed by the House, in that they are designed to alleviate suffering and save life, but as we approach the 10th anniversary of the mistaken military action against Saddam Hussein, does he understand that many of us in the House are concerned lest we might drift towards something that might be described as military intervention?

William Hague: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for saying that the measures I have announced should be welcomed by the House. I welcome his support and, yes, I absolutely understand that after more than a decade of conflict, in different ways, people are always anxious about new conflict. That does not mean, however, that we can stick our heads in the sand and ignore the new conflicts that have arisen in the world and that can affect us, for all the reasons that I have described. It does mean that our response to them has to be very intelligent and well calculated. Getting to the heart of his question, I think we can say clearly that no western Government are advocating the military intervention of western nations—or of any nations—in the conflict in Syria. The discussion is entirely focused on the degree of assistance that can and should be delivered to the opposition inside Syria. That is what the discussion is centred on, rather than on an external military intervention.

Peter Hain: But will the Foreign Secretary accept that the logical next step in the strategy that he has been pursuing for six months, if not more, is to arm the opposition? That is the logical position that he is now in, but I think that it is profoundly mistaken. Every time he has made a statement on this matter in the past six months, he has carried the whole House with him in eloquently condemning the horror, the deterioration and the barbarity of the evil Assad regime, but his strategy is wrong. Just going for regime change in what is a civil war, with its Shi’a-Sunni conflict and its reincarnation of the cold war, is never going to achieve his objective. What he should be doing, instead of just promoting the opposition’s call for negotiations, is testing the willingness to negotiate that Assad expressed over the weekend. He should test it to destruction, but he is not doing that. He is pursuing a failed strategy involving a monumental failure of diplomacy, and it is making the situation worse.

William Hague: The right hon. Gentleman does not help his case in describing the Government’s position in that way. It very much follows from what I said in response to the shadow Foreign Secretary that we believe the apparent offer of President Assad to negotiate must absolutely be tested and tested to destruction. We will certainly do that, and the right hon. Gentleman and I will strongly agree on that. If he were in government today, however, he would have to think about what else to do if that did not work, and it has not worked over the last two years—

Peter Hain: It hasn’t been tried.

William Hague: It has been tried countless times: Lakhdar Brahimi has been to Damascus countless times, and Kofi Annan before him went to Damascus countless times. Every possibility has been given to the regime to negotiate, but it has never entered into a sincere or meaningful negotiation. That being the case, it is not
	adequate to watch slaughter on this scale and say that we will stick our heads in the sand about it. It is important to have a foreign policy that relieves human suffering and upholds human rights. I would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would always be in favour of that.

Richard Ottaway: While I agree with the Foreign Secretary’s position in not supplying weapons to the rebels, it is perfectly clear that someone is supplying weapons to the rebels at present. Is not the great challenge for Syria the fact that that lot will end up fighting against Shi’a-backed militants, supported by Iran, Lebanon and Iraq, some time in the future?

William Hague: Of course, the increasingly sectarian nature of the conflict is one of our great concerns. That is why we have to do everything we reasonably can to shorten the conflict, as that will only get worse as the conflict goes on. As my hon. Friend says, the conflict in Syria is already militarised and weapons have already been obtained and are being obtained by all the factions fighting in Syria, including the military council, working with the national coalition. I fear that the longer the conflict goes on, the more sectarian it will be in nature and the more opportunity there will be for extremists to take hold there. Giving our assistance to moderate forces and not to extremist forces is therefore one way in which we can try to shape the situation in a more sensible direction.

Meg Munn: What consideration, if any, has been given to the possibility of implementing a no-fly zone?

William Hague: A no-fly zone is sometimes advocated, including at international meetings. The greatest difficulty with a no-fly zone is, of course, that it is a response of a totally different nature. It is a military intervention of the sort that we have been talking about and against which many hon. Members have warned. It would require military force externally on a substantial scale. A good argument of principle can be made for that on the basis of relieving human suffering by doing whatever is necessary, but the willingness of nations around the world to implement such a military intervention is limited, for understandable reasons. Indeed, such a no-fly zone could be achieved in practice only with the full participation of the United States of America, so major practical difficulties are involved. What we must not get into is saying that there are protected areas or humanitarian corridors, but then not being able to protect people. There is a sad and tragic history of those things. We should only take the step that the hon. Lady is talking about if the world and the international community were truly ready to bring it about.

Alec Shelbrooke: My right hon. Friend is right to say that Syria can count on being shielded by some countries at the United Nations; not least, we know that Russia had the opportunity to bring about some sanctions in the Security Council early on. Will he start talking to his counterparts in the European Union and, indeed, in the United States about saying to the Russians, “If you don’t want to take part in this and put on the blue berets, get on the ground and do something, there will be consequences”? If the Russians refuse to take that sort of action, and are
	willing to stand by and let tens of thousands of people be slaughtered, we should work with our European partners, the US and south American countries to say to them, “We are not going to come to your country to showcase it in the World cup in 2018.”

William Hague: I say to my hon. Friend that we must use every art of persuasion we know in our talks with our colleagues in Russia. I can assure him that we do that. The shadow Foreign Secretary argued earlier that we must put the case to Russia about the growth of extremism in Syria and so on—and we do. I have lost count of the number of occasions on which I and other western Foreign Ministers have put the case to our Russian counterparts that everything Russia most fears in Syria is more likely to come true the longer the conflict goes on. That includes the rise of international terrorism and instability in the whole region. The Russians clearly have a different analysis, and we have not had any meeting of minds on the issue. I have to say that I am not a great fan of sporting sanctions. As a country that has just hosted the Olympics, we have a well-established position on that, but we will use every other art of persuasion in dealing with Russia.

Nigel Dodds: The Assad regime is clearly barbarous and has to go, but does the Foreign Secretary understand the concerns of many of our constituents who raise issues about atrocities and war crimes carried out on the opposition side, about the role of al-Qaeda and about the fact that support and help going into the country for good and proper reasons set out in good faith can end up helping people who are deeply hostile to western interests and equally guilty of terrible crimes against humanity?

William Hague: Yes, of course people are right to be concerned about any atrocities and any opportunity for international terrorism to take hold in a new place. That is one reason why we cannot just turn away from this crisis. It is also why—this is the nub of the right hon. Gentleman’s question—the assistance we give must be carefully thought out and monitored. Of course, all the assistance and equipment I have talked about is non-lethal. We will monitor its use to the best of our ability, but if it were misused or fell into the hands of groups for which it was not intended, that would have a very serious impact on our willingness to provide any such further assistance in the future. I stress that while people read about the opportunity for extremists to take hold, and while we are concerned about it, as I have described, the great majority of the people, even those involved in the fighting in Syria as far as we can tell, are not extremists. The opposition leaders whom I meet are people who sincerely want a future for their country that has nothing to do with extremism and terrorism. We must not leave those people feeling abandoned by the world.

Julian Lewis: Unfortunately, the record of moderates in standing up against extremists in such situations is not all that great. Does the Foreign Secretary accept that our sworn enemies, al-Qaeda, are fighting on the side of the opposition? Our concern is therefore that if and when the appalling Assad regime is overthrown as the Government wish, its chemical weapons stocks will fall into al-Qaeda’s hands. What practical guarantee can the Government give us that that will not
	happen? I asked that question on Monday; it was not satisfactorily answered, which is why I am asking it again.

William Hague: No one can give any guarantees. This is why a political and orderly transition should happen in Syria. There are certainly terrible weapons, chemical and biological, in Syria, which is why it is important to be clear that there is no military-only solution, whatever one’s point of view on the situation. Those chemical weapons are best safeguarded through a peaceful transition. That is what we need to keep arguing for. Without giving additional assistance to the moderate elements of the opposition, however, we would reduce rather than enhance the prospects for an orderly transition.

Mike Gapes: Is it not the case that it would be more secure, and more in our interests, to introduce a no-fly zone than to arm the opposition? We can keep control of the equipment in a no-fly zone, but we cannot do that if we hand it over to jihadist groups. Is it not also the case that the United States Administration and some neighbouring countries, including Turkey, are against the introduction of a no-fly zone, which means that we are unable to introduce one?

William Hague: Let me make it clear that I have not announced the arming of the opposition. This is different; it is about increasing the assistance that we give the opposition in the form of non-lethal equipment. The hon. Gentleman is putting the case for an external military intervention, rather than a move to any policy of support for the sending of lethal equipment to Syria. There is a respectable case for that, but as I said earlier to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn), it would require the willingness of a large part of the international community, almost certainly including the United States, so that we were not making a false promise of safety to people. Syria continues to have strong air defences with very modern equipment, and the implementation of a no-fly zone would be a very large military undertaking. It is important for those who advocate it to bear that in mind.

Gerald Howarth: However distressing the picture of the humanitarian crisis that we see on our television screens—and it is indeed distressing—I must tell my right hon. Friend that I am extremely concerned that the United Kingdom’s hand is being drawn ever more closely into this mangle. I share all the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis). What confidence has my right hon. Friend in his belief that what I think he described as the modern and democratic forces can be assisted, and will thence be in charge of a post-conflict Syria? If he is not confident of that, what we will be faced with is a further load of bloody jihadists. I hope that he will completely rule out the use of Britain’s armed forces, who are already greatly overstretched.

William Hague: I entirely understand my hon. Friend’s concerns. What I am confident about is that giving the active support that I have described to that modern and democratic opposition is the best way of helping to ensure that they are the ones who are successful. Our
	hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) rightly pointed out that it is often the moderate forces who lose out to extremists in circumstances such as these. The longer this goes on and the less support those forces receive from outside, the less will be their chances of success in standing up to those extremists. We must make a choice about whether we are prepared to give that support, and I think that the right choice for the United Kingdom is to increase the level of support for people who we would be prepared to see succeed.

Jeremy Corbyn: The situation in Syria is obviously appalling, and the humanitarian crisis is absolutely devastating, but the ending of every war requires a political solution of some sort. What serious negotiations are being undertaken with Saudi Arabia and Qatar, which are fundamentally the funders of the opposition forces in Syria, and what serious engagement is taking place with the Government of Iran, particularly in regard to bringing about some kind of comprehensive peace negotiation and peace process? Without that, there will be more suffering, more deaths and more difficulties for everyone.

William Hague: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. If regional powers were able to agree among themselves about the situation and about a solution, that would be an enormous step forward, just as it would be a vital step forward if we, the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, were able to agree among ourselves. There have been some attempts. Last autumn, the Egyptian Government convened a group consisting of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Turkey to consider the situation together and to see if they could agree on a way forward. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that they did not reach an agreement, but that is not to say that such a group could not be revived in the future. We have absolutely no problem with that. It did not succeed before—the reason it did not succeed is that Iran has not been prepared to agree on a way forward with other countries in the region—but that does not mean that it should not be tried again.

Bob Stewart: In this civil war, it seems that there is a military stalemate between two sides that have military forces. In those circumstances, and given that each side claims that it wants to negotiate, is there any chance that we can put all our efforts into securing a ceasefire, so that when the guns stop and civilians stop being killed, we may actually be able to use politics to resolve the situation?

William Hague: That is a very good thought. That too has been tried before, but it should be tried again. In any negotiated way forward, a ceasefire would be a very important element of the early part of the negotiations. My hon. Friend may recall that last summer the United Nations envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, proposed a ceasefire to coincide with Eid. For a short time there was some hope that the proposal would be implemented, and there were many efforts to implement it in parts of Syria, but within days the ceasefire had completely broken down. Again, that does not mean that a ceasefire should not be at the top of the agenda for negotiations, but as my hon. Friend will have gathered, we do not have successful negotiations at the moment—much as we will discuss that with Mr Brahimi this afternoon.

Gisela Stuart: Will the Foreign Secretary tell us what discussions he has had with Turkey, and what Turkey’s attitude is to the easing of the arms embargo?

William Hague: Turkey is very supportive of the change that the European Union has made in the arms embargo. It has, let us say, a forward-leaning approach to the crisis. If the Turkish Foreign Minister were here, he would not only say everything that I have said today, but say quite a lot more about the need for greater international support for the national coalition. I shall be meeting him again tomorrow, here in London, when he comes to the Friends of Yemen meeting, but I can say now that Turkey is extremely supportive of this announcement and of the change in EU policy.

Bernard Jenkin: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. I note that he does not rule out any option, and that, according to his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth), he does not rule out military intervention. No country is advocating that yet, but if Syria is considered to be part of a primary interest in our national security strategy, are we equipped to deal with this crisis? To what extent should my right hon. Friend be talking to his opposite number, my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary, about what contingency arrangements should be made—and, indeed, what additional expenditure is required—to give us the capacity at least to influence the security aspects of this problem?

William Hague: Of course the Defence Secretary and I discuss the whole range of international affairs on an almost continuous basis. We make the decisions about our policy on Syria in the National Security Council or in the Cabinet; we discussed it in the Cabinet yesterday. He and I are very much of the same mind, and work closely together in relation to all contingencies.
	As my hon. Friend knows, the Ministry of Defence has plans covering a wide range of contingencies. It is not helpful for Ministers to speculate about those contingencies, and I stress again that we are neither calling for nor planning a military intervention. The discussion in the international community is about the degree of support for the opposition inside Syria, rather than about an external intervention. We will plan for all contingencies, but that is the context and the background of any military role in this crisis.

Louise Ellman: What does the Foreign Secretary think is the likelihood of chemical weapons being used in Syria, or of those weapons being moved to Hezbollah in Lebanon, thus destabilising the wider region?

William Hague: As I said in my statement, we are increasingly concerned about the regime’s possible use, or possible willingness to use, chemical weapons, and we are always concerned about any transfer of those weapons to other groups or other countries in the region, as are many of those countries. We send the strong message that I conveyed in my statement—and the President of the United States himself has conveyed a similar strong message—about the use of chemical weapons by anyone, including the Syrian regime.
	It is important for the Syrian regime to hear the message that the world will be determined that the individuals responsible are held to account if chemical weapons are used.

Martin Horwood: I strongly support the Foreign Secretary’s stand on this very difficult issue. Will he tell Mr Bogdanov this afternoon that, with 1 million fled and as many as 100,000 dead, the Syrian catastrophe now stands comparison with the Rwandan genocide, which led the international community to adopt the responsibility-to-protect doctrine in the first place, and that Russia should engage with coalition forces or face the prospect of a jihadist regime, which neither we nor it would want?

William Hague: Basically, I will tell him that—yes. That is part of the argument I stated earlier: Russia is rightly concerned about international terrorism—Russians have experience of that themselves—and if this situation goes on for many more months or years, we will see a much greater opening for such international terrorism. This is becoming a human catastrophe of immense proportions, so my hon. Friend can be confident that I will make this argument to my Russian counterpart in the robust terms he would want.

Elfyn Llwyd: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the advance copy of the statement, and welcome its emphasis on humanitarian aid. I am sure we all agree that it is now time for all nations to focus on a non-violent resolution if at all possible. That is obvious, but yesterday Israel said—threatened—at the Security Council that it cannot “stand idle” if the Syrian civil war spills over on to its border. This is a very serious situation. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is aware of that, and that we need to do everything we can to avoid further conflagration.

William Hague: Absolutely; the right hon. Gentleman is right. The danger of the spread of the crisis regionally, into other countries in different ways, is one of the reasons we cannot just watch it develop. We have to work out the best constructive approach, difficult though these choices are, to try to turn this crisis in the right direction, rather than let it drift in the wrong direction. Any of the neighbouring countries will take action if their borders are infringed, of course. We have agreed to the stationing of Patriot missiles by NATO in Turkey, Lebanon has been very concerned about clashes on its border, and the Jordanian border is a tense place—and that is even before we consider the Golan Heights and the Iraqi border as well. The regional dimension is of serious and increasing concern, which is one of the reasons for today’s package of policy changes and announcements.

Edward Leigh: May I strongly reject the neo-con policies and ideas emanating from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind)? What could be gained by our sending arms into this cauldron? Have we forgotten the disastrous policy of arming the rebels in Afghanistan? Have we forgotten the appalling atrocities being committed now by jihadis against Christians in Syria? What is wrong with basing our policy on life and not death?

William Hague: My hon. Friend can be reassured that I have never considered myself to be a neo-con and do not describe myself as that as Foreign Secretary. Our policy must be very carefully calibrated. My hon. Friend draws attention to situations that have gone seriously wrong from the point of view of the international community. We must however also bear in mind, in the case of the western Balkans in the 1990s, the sense of abandonment and the radicalisation of Muslims in many parts of the world from a policy that for too long denied people any ability in an extreme situation to protect themselves. The policy that I have announced of doing what we can to protect civilian life is a necessary and proportionate response.

Geoffrey Robinson: The Foreign Secretary is well aware that there is no shortage of lethal weapons in Syria, so there is very little, if any, case for our supplying any. Frankly, supplying armoured four-wheel drive vehicles as well as personal protection equipment, including body armour, to the opposition and peoples we are trying to support, so that they can drive around in a state of total personal immunity, is not best calculated to enhance the credibility of our policy or its credibility in the eyes of the civilians who continue to live in the most appalling suffering and danger. The Secretary of State would, I believe, carry the whole House and country with a massive increase in our humanitarian assistance. He should direct his efforts to binding our European partners into doing that as well as to sanctions.

William Hague: The hon. Gentleman can be pleased in that case, because we have announced enormous increases in our humanitarian assistance. It is for my right hon. Friend the International Development Secretary, who was here earlier, to announce such things, and she announced at the Kuwait conference at the end of January a vast increase—a £50 million increase—taking the total to £140 million. We are one of the biggest donors in the world in trying to alleviate human suffering. I hope that when the hon. Gentleman lists what I have said we will be sending to the opposition he will cite the full list, including medical supplies, water purification and measures to help prevent the spread of disease. The need to alleviate humanitarian suffering is therefore at the forefront of our minds, and that is what Britain is devoting by far the greatest resources to in all the effort we are putting into addressing this crisis.

Crispin Blunt: In face of these difficulties, I strongly commend my right hon. Friend and the Foreign Office for the policy they are pursuing. In his statement, he rightly drew attention to the jihadists committing atrocities using explosive devices, including car bombs. I have a British-Syrian constituent who is on the verge of acquiring British citizenship who has immediate family who has been killed by such a car bomb. She now wants to bring her parents to the UK simply for them to have some respite from what is happening there. They are faced with an incredibly difficult journey either to Lebanon or Jordan in order simply to make the application to come here, which now seems extremely difficult even if they were to end up being successful and getting here. If the circumstances are as I have described, will my right hon. Friend make clear that such applications simply for the parents to come here for a while would merit his support?

William Hague: My hon. Friend described that case very well, but, as he knows, such decisions are for the Home Secretary. I cannot say that in all circumstances we will be opening doors for people to come to the United Kingdom. As I have said, there are now 1 million refugees in other countries. It is the responsibility of the countries that receive the refugees to look after them, with international support, and I pay tribute to the generosity of the people of Lebanon, Turkey, Jordan and Iraq in what they are doing, and we are doing our best to assist. That is the prime way for refugees to be assisted. My hon. Friend’s question serves as a reminder, however, that not only are 4 million out of the population of 21 million displaced or in desperate need, but many of the remaining people are in extremely dangerous and stressful conditions and are unable to pursue normal life in any way, so this is affecting the great majority of the whole country.

Hugh Bayley: The divisions among factions in the moderate and democratic opposition not only make the extremists stronger, but make the process of staging negotiations very difficult and the ability to determine who will form a Government of Syria when the regime falls absolutely impossible. What are our Government and allies doing to get greater coherence and common purpose within the moderate opposition?

William Hague: There is much greater coherence now than there has been for a long time. In the circumstances, it is not surprising that it is difficult to bring together something like the National Coalition, but it is very much the best attempt that can reasonably be made to bring together those moderate and democratic forces, and it is now there to be negotiated with. Quite often over the past two years the refrain of some of the other countries on the Security Council and of the regime has been, “We want to negotiate, but we do not have someone to negotiate with.” Now they do not have that excuse. The National Coalition is there for them to negotiate with, and it is willing to negotiate, so the onus is now on the regime to show that it can seriously negotiate.

John Baron: I urge caution. Human rights groups have confirmed that atrocities have been committed by both sides, and by arming the rebels we could be arming the terrorists of the future, as well as escalating the violence. May I bring the Foreign Secretary back to the comments he made over the weekend, which clearly indicated a change in thinking about non-lethal support, despite what we were told in this House on Monday? To what extent were his comments a reflection of reports we are now getting that President Obama is thinking about changing his policy on this issue?

William Hague: I am not aware of any inconsistency in what I have said. In fact, I have said throughout that we do not rule out any options; I have said that for two years, and it would be strange to start ruling options out as the situation got worse, having not done that at any period. That is what I have said today and it is what I said at the weekend. What we are proposing to do is what I have set out today, and my hon. Friend will know from Secretary Kerry’s announcement that it is closely related to what the United States has announced. It has
	announced $60 million of additional practical, but non-lethal, support to the National Coalition, and I have announced $20 million—to use a comparator—that the United Kingdom will provide. So our policy is closely aligned with that of the United States, but neither country is advocating the policy to which my hon. Friend is so strongly opposed.

Frank Roy: When the Syrian rebels use our armoured vehicles during battle, will that not be seen as the United Kingdom giving lethal assistance?

William Hague: Such vehicles are non-lethal equipment—that is how they are defined and that is very clear—as is body armour. The hon. Gentleman could advocate a different policy of not trying to save lives in Syria, and that is what he is suggesting in his question. He is suggesting that we say, “No, we will not try to save lives. We will not send this kind of assistance to people who desperately ask for it, even though they are slaughtered in huge numbers.” It is his choice to advocate that policy, but I do not think it is responsible, and it would not give moral authority to our foreign policy.

Sarah Newton: I am very concerned for my constituents whose Syrian Christian family living in Aleppo are being persecuted for their faith and having their friends murdered by the jihadists whom the Secretary of State has mentioned. What assurance can be given to me, and to the many hon. Members here today who are worried about this situation, that any British support is not helping rebels who are also Islamic fundamentalists?

William Hague: That is an important point, and it is important to stress, as I did in response to other questions, that our support is to the moderate and democratic forces in Syria. That is one reason why all the support I have set out is also non-lethal. It is also important for us to monitor, as best we can, the use of that equipment. If we thought that at any stage it was being used by people we had not intended it for, our attitude to providing any such further equipment would, of course, have to change dramatically.

Paul Flynn: The House is deeply united on the humanitarian aid but deeply divided on the oversimplified view of the Foreign Secretary, who, on this complex civil war, could not bring himself to mention the al-Nusra Front, a jihadist group that is a vital part of the opposition. It has been accused of some of the most bloodthirsty massacres of civilians. Will he give an absolute guarantee that before we commit military equipment or personnel to Syria there will be a debate and a vote in this House, so that we can avoid repeating what we have done so often, which is in trying to punch our weight we die beyond our responsibilities?

William Hague: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has been listening carefully and will know that I have not announced or advocated sending military equipment or personnel. Of course we have conventions in this House, which he and I strongly support, about when we take decisions in the House, and we will observe all those. He will have to decide, given his long concern for humanitarian issues, whether it would be right to be static in the face
	of this situation. That is the alternative to what I have described. Everybody across the House is rightly concerned about the humanitarian situation, but I do not believe it is responsible for policy to sit still in the face of a rapidly worsening situation.

James Morris: The Foreign Secretary mentioned the increasing evidence of the Iranian regime’s involvement in arming the Assad regime. Does he agree that there might be opportunities to put pressure on the Iranian regime to desist, in the context of the ongoing negotiations on the Iranian nuclear programme?

William Hague: I am not sure that those negotiations provide the opportunity to put on that pressure, as they are very focused on the nuclear programme. Yesterday, I reported to the House during Foreign Office questions the progress—it is at a very early stage—made in those negotiations in Almaty last week. The pressure on the Iranians should be and is a different pressure: the world knows about these activities; in the end it will be proved in Syria that the Assad regime is doomed; and many people in Syria will not want to forgive Iran for intervening in all the ways I have described, including with armed personnel.

Jenny Chapman: How concerned is the Foreign Secretary at the comments made by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees this morning that the number of refugees who would be leaving Syria had been severely underestimated and that there were barely 25% of the resources needed to deal with the 1 million people now leaving the country? What is the Foreign Secretary doing, together with colleagues in the Department for International Development, to make sure that that lack of preparedness is not allowed to continue?

William Hague: The United Nations asked at the time of the Kuwait conference for $1.5 billion in donations. This is the biggest financial appeal that the UN has ever made for such a crisis. In promising the additional £50 million, my right hon. Friend the International Development Secretary took our total humanitarian support provided through DFID to nearly £140 million. We are very good at not only pledging that, but delivering it. We are good at not only saying we will write the cheque, but writing the cheque. However, not all other countries are as good. The $1.5 billion was pledged and we have to make sure that other countries deliver on those promises. I am having many bilateral meetings with other nations involved in the next 36 hours and we are raising that issue with each of those countries, saying that we all now have to deliver on our pledges.

Rehman Chishti: The Foreign Secretary will know that the United States was one of the last leading countries to recognise the Syrian opposition. Do the United Kingdom and the USA now have an agreed joint policy on Syria? If there is no such joint policy, the future for Syria looks bleak.

William Hague: There is a joint policy. My hon. Friend will notice that what Secretary Kerry announced last week is very close to what I am announcing this week. I discussed it with him on several occasions last week, in
	Rome and in London. We have a very similar view, both on the gravity of the crisis and on the need for increased action of the kind that I have announced today in order to try to speed a resolution of the crisis. My hon. Friend can be assured that London and Washington are closely aligned on this matter.

John Cryer: I have heard many statements like this one in years gone by and, inevitably, most of the time we end up being involved in a quagmire from which we cannot extricate ourselves. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), I take the view that it is time to have a full debate, in Government time, on the Floor of the House, with the possibility of a vote.

William Hague: It is important for the hon. Gentleman to distinguish between situations where Britain may be involved in a quagmire and situations where we are helping other people to try to get out of a quagmire—that is what we are trying to do with this sort of assistance. We cannot turn aside requests for assistance. I believe that this is the eighth statement I have given about Syria, so I am always willing to come to the House to debate it.

Diana Johnson: The Foreign Secretary has talked about the impact on the wider region, so will he comment on Jordan, a key strategic ally with very limited resources that is facing a huge influx of refugees from Syria?

William Hague: I pay tribute to the people and the Government of Jordan. Last summer, I visited the refugee reception areas just inside the Jordanian border. Since then, the numbers involved have got much larger, with more than 312,000 refugees in Jordan, most of whom reside with host communities and families but some of whom are in camps. The Jordanians have done a magnificent job and we have discussed regularly with them how we can help further. I shall meet the Foreign Minister of Jordan tomorrow and we will discuss that further.

Phillip Lee: Although he was a ruthless and murderous individual, the late father of the current President of Syria had a reputation for doing what he said he was going to do. In contrast, his son is a fundamentally weak individual surrounded by stronger characters as advisers. To what extent does the Foreign Secretary agree that the personal weakness of the President of Syria will make a diplomatic solution unlikely if not impossible?

William Hague: My hon. Friend is right and the situation he describes is one of the obstacles. Not only the President of Syria but other members of his family are closely involved in the power structure in Syria, including his brother. An entire system of finance, power and rewards makes up a pyramid of which President Assad is simply at the top. A political and diplomatic solution requires people much further down the pyramid to agree that it is a good idea. That makes the situation complex and is one reason why offers of negotiations by
	the regime are not followed up by serious negotiations. That is indeed one of the obstacles.

Andrew Gwynne: The Foreign Secretary has set out for the House a bleak picture of a dangerous civil war, with a toxic mix of Iranian involvement, possibly al-Qaeda and other extremists. What assessment have the British Government made of the claims of alleged involvement from Hezbollah in the conflict in Syria and of the wider potential for regional instability that would flow from that?

William Hague: There is the potential, as we have discussed, for regional instability, including in Lebanon and in relation to Hezbollah. One of the dangers is of clashes on the Lebanese border in the south of Lebanon between Hezbollah and the Free Syrian army or other elements of the Syrian opposition—let alone with Syrian regime forces. I do not have any other evidence that I can cite about Hezbollah, but that in itself is a great danger and is one of the reasons we are assisting with the stability of Lebanon. In Lebanon two weeks ago I announced additional British funding for the Lebanese armed forces, which are an important part of trying to keep that border peaceful, including our direct help with the construction of border observation posts. Of course, there is everything else we are doing to try to bring about a resolution of the crisis.

Stephen Mosley: My right hon. Friend has always been very clear that our priorities are to try to stop the killing and to find a peaceful solution. If a peaceful solution can be found but the price is that Assad stays in power, would we be able to accept that deal or have we reached a stage at which the precursor to any deal must be that Assad goes?

William Hague: It is not for us to decide who is in power in any other country, including in Syria. It is the position of the Syrian National Coalition and all opposition groups that they want to see the departure of President Assad, but we will not be more like the Syrian opposition than the Syrian opposition. Mr al-Khatib has said that he is prepared to negotiate with the regime without Assad going first and that is a position we should support. It is impossible for any observer of these events to see President Assad ever again being able to unify or govern the country, so we say he should go, but the opposition has offered to negotiate and that is the right thing to do.

Mark Durkan: It is clear that the House shares the sense of humanitarian urgency that the Foreign Secretary has articulated so well, but many are also concerned that that urgency should not entail a working disregard for the true character and real agenda of some of the opposition forces. May I acknowledge the particular principles expressed by the Foreign Secretary today? Our foreign policy is inseparable from upholding human rights, protecting lives and supporting international law; we must assist the genuine moderate and democratic forces who are in dire need of help and who feel abandoned by the international community; and we cannot look the other way while international law and human rights are flouted. When will we see those principles manifest in the Government’s engagement in other situations, including Palestine?

William Hague: They are, but that question might take us rather wider than the subject of Syria—indeed, it is absolutely intended to do so. I welcome in general what the hon. Gentleman says and that is the objective of our foreign policy more broadly. We are heavily engaged in conflict prevention or conflict resolution in Somalia, Yemen and Sudan and are working to promote an arms trade treaty and to pursue my initiative on preventing sexual violence in conflict. The United Kingdom, under successive Governments, has had a strong record in conflict prevention that is true to the principles that the hon. Gentleman cited, and that continues under this Government. We must always uphold that tradition.

Blood, Organ and Bone Marrow Donation (Education)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Seema Malhotra: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a duty on schools and colleges in England with pupils aged 16 years and over to enable pupils to gain greater understanding of the processes and benefits of blood, organ and bone marrow donation; and for connected purposes.
	The Bill aims to address the steadfast shortfall in blood, organ and bone marrow donors, which is a particular concern among ethnic minorities. I commend the work of NHS Blood and Transplant, the charity Anthony Nolan and all those involved in the National Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic Transplant Alliance in addressing that deceptively difficult task.
	Every 20 minutes in the UK, someone is diagnosed with a blood cancer such as leukaemia. It could happen to any of us or to any or our family members, young or old. As I speak, 1,600 people need a bone marrow transplant from a suitable matching donor to treat blood cancer or a blood disease. A matching sibling donor does not always exist and for 70% of patients the kindness of a stranger on a register of volunteer donors is the last hope of life. For half those in need, that match will not be found. Although bone marrow donation provides no guarantees, the five-year survival rate following a bone marrow transplant stands at 40%.
	The problem is more acute for ethnic minorities. White northern Europeans have a 90% chance of finding a bone marrow donor, but that falls to just 40% for people from BAME backgrounds. A person’s bone marrow tissue type is based on 10 genetic markers, which must closely match those of their donor. Among ethnic minority populations the range of these markers is great, resulting in a greater range of tissue types and a reduced chance of a successful patient and donor match.
	There are volunteer programmes to encourage donors, but a more comprehensive solution is needed. Meeting the donor shortfall can be accelerated by educating young people about how they could save a life, a true example of how our education and health services can join up in a very simple way to solve a national problem. That was the belief of Adrian Sudbury after whom the call for this law, Adrian’s law, is named. Adrian was a 25-year-old journalist when he was diagnosed with leukaemia in 2006. As he learned about his treatment, he discovered that young people were not regularly informed about becoming donors and realised that many more people like him could be helped if donation was far better understood.
	Adrian campaigned alongside friends and family for an education project to equip 16 to 18 year olds with the facts about bone marrow, blood and organ donation and to bust the myths around those donation processes. That campaign became “Register and Be a Lifesaver”, the education project managed by Anthony Nolan and NHS Blood and Transplant that started shortly after Adrian’s death in 2008. The programme has been run with the support and drive of Keith and Kay Sudbury, Adrian’s parents, with Keith’s background
	as a head teacher being invaluable. I pay tribute to Adrian’s parents and his sister Carrie for their work.
	In a short, flexibly delivered training session that needs to last only 30 to 40 minutes, pupils learn that 7,000 units of blood are needed every day and that each one can help three people. They learn that 90% of people think organ donation is a good idea, but just 31% are on the organ donor register. They also learn that bone marrow donation is much like giving blood, for the most part. Once given the absolute facts, young people can decide for themselves about their potential to help someone in need, and decide they do. In October 2012 Anthony Nolan changed the joining policy governing its bone marrow donor register to allow young people from the age of 16 to sign up. In the five months since that change, over 1,800 young people decided to join the bone marrow donor register after learning the facts. Indeed, since the whole project began in 2009, more than 1,400 young people have joined the organ donor register and 5,000 have signed up to donate blood.
	But this is not just a numbers game. Reaching more young people, and quickly, will help us find matching donors and reduce the number of people who die while waiting for that lifesaving match. There is also the question of donor availability. A clinician prefers a younger bone marrow donor for their patient, as a younger donor is less likely to have any health conditions that prevent them from donating or that delay donation.
	The need for donors is clear. The solution is also clear. Anthony Nolan has asked young people, who make the best donors, to consider the power that they have to save a life, and they have answered that call. Education on citizenship is heralded as a means to embed our responsibility to our communities, creating a generation committed to volunteering, so why not, by the same measure, consider education on donation as a means to ensure a healthy future for those who need blood transfusions and organ or bone marrow transplants? We have a responsibility to uphold access to the best
	possible care and speedy treatment at a time of need. Adrian believed that young people would take on their responsibility when informed of the opportunity to help, and early Register and Be a Lifesaver results from the 424 schools so far reached show that he was correct.
	In conclusion, I thank all the hon. Members who have shown such support for this Bill, in addition to all its sponsors. I would like to mention in particular my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), my hon. Friends the Members for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali), for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) and for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) and my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock).
	I call on the Government to take action to bring in this duty for schools and colleges, and to take the simple step of making education on donation available to everyone over 16 in schools and colleges—a measure that would make a radical difference to the health care of so many in Britain and abroad.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Seema Malhotra, Angela Smith, Glyn Davies, Sir Peter Bottomley, Mr Dennis Skinner, Mr David Lammy, Lyn Brown, Luciana Berger, Sir Bob Russell, Mark Tami, Jim Shannon and Mr Virendra Sharma present the Bill.
	Seema Malhotra accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 April 2013 and to be printed (Bill 145).

Estimates Day
	 — 
	[3rd Allotted Day]

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES 2012-13
	 — 
	DEPARTMENT FOR WORK AND PENSIONS
	 — 
	Universal Credit

[Relevant Documents: The Third Report from the Work and Pensions Committee, Universal Credit implementation: meeting the needs of vulnerable claimants, HC 576, and the Government response, Cm 8537.]
	Motion made and question proposed,
	That, for the year ending with 31 March 2013, for expenditure by the Department for Work and Pensions—
	(1) further resources, not exceeding £507,034,000, be authorised for use for current purposes as set out in HC 894,
	(2) further resources, not exceeding £97,653,000, be authorised for use for capital purposes as so set out, and
	(3) a further sum, not exceeding £2,133,672,000, be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.—(Mr Swayne.)

Anne Begg: On 22 November last year I was privileged to launch in the Chamber a Work and Pensions Committee report entitled “Universal Credit implementation: meeting the needs of vulnerable claimants”. That day I was the only one officially allowed to speak. As a result there are a number of hon. Members who are—I was going to say frustrated—itching to speak. I hope they will have the opportunity to do so now.
	That day showed that there was huge interest in various aspects of universal credit and its implementation, so it is excellent that we have the chance to have this debate today, especially as the Government have now published their response to that report and we can look in more detail at the issues raised by the Select Committee. I expect hon. Members will also raise their own issues that we did not examine. It is a good time to revisit the findings of our report to see whether, three and a half months on, the Government have made progress in addressing some of our concerns. This has become more urgent because the first claimants in the pathfinder areas will begin to be assessed for universal credit in just over a month, and the roll-out for new claimants begins in October this year.
	Universal credit is the Government’s flagship welfare reform. Everyone of working age who claims one or more of the many income-related benefits will, over the next four years, be moved on to universal credit. Some 8.3 million households will be affected once it is fully rolled out. Not all of them will be on the new universal credit, but they will be affected in some way, so if universal credit does not work in the way that it is designed to do or if the IT fails to deliver, it has the potential to cause a great deal of stress and anxiety in families who depend on the state for some or all of their income.
	The size of the Government’s ambition in introducing universal credit became clear to the Select Committee as we began to receive evidence. Such a large-scale
	reform of the benefits system has so many aspects to it that we realised we would not be able to cover all the provisions in detail. We did not have time to explore fully all the incentives and disincentives to see which families would be better off and which would be worse off, who would lose money and who would manage to survive. Other questions were raised with us that we did not deal with in as much detail. Would families with high child care costs be better or worse off, for instance?
	We did not have time to interrogate properly how robust the Government’s often repeated assertion is that under universal credit all people would be better off in work than not in work under all circumstances. Some doubt has been cast on whether that will be true. We know that under the system there will be notional losers, although the Government have promised that there will be some cash protection. We were aware, for instance, that second earners in the family may not mean that the family is better off under universal credit. We were aware also that families with particularly high child care costs might not be better off once those are factored in.
	The reason it is often very difficult to reform a complex welfare system, as we have in this country, is that there can often be unintended consequences, and I am sure UC will be no different. I am fairly sure that Ministers will admit that that is bound to be the case. Even if everything goes incredibly well, there will be unintended consequences. The real test for the Government will be how adept and quick the Department for Work and Pensions is in dealing with the inevitable blips; how it irons out the kinks, how it ensures that families do not face difficulties while it sorts out any problems and how quickly it responds when the inevitable difficulties arise.
	It would have been impossible for the Committee to give detailed consideration to every aspect of universal credit, so we decided to concentrate on its implications for vulnerable claimants, which explains the report’s title. Not all benefit claimants are vulnerable; far from it. It is worth remembering that most people of working age who receive benefits are in work and are not dependent on the benefits system for all their income. However, it is probably true to say that all vulnerable people are benefit claimants. It is therefore imperative that the Department takes account of that and does not design a system that can be accessed only by people who can manage their lives fairly well. It must also be easy to navigate for someone who finds life a struggle. I mean someone who struggles to pay their bills, struggles to follow basic written instructions, struggles with poor health, struggles to use public transport, struggles to heat their home or struggles to put a nutritious meal on the table—someone who just struggles with daily living. Those are the people who face a complete overhaul of the benefits they receive. It was to those who might find the introduction of universal credit a real challenge that the Committee paid most attention.
	The biggest barrier a vulnerable claimant might face is making a claim in the first place, because the Government are determined that universal credit will be an online benefit—“digital by default” is the phrase they use. The application will be made online, any change in circumstances or other information will have to be reported online, as will any change of earnings, but the sting in the tail is
	that the information might come from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, so obviously the information has to get from HMRC to the DWP computers.
	The most important aspect of universal credit’s delivery will be the IT. If it goes wrong, the whole system will grind to a halt. However, a digital system, in order to work, requires users—in this case the claimants—to have access to, and be able to use, the internet. There is still great concern that the people who need to apply for universal credit will not have access to the internet, or indeed to a computer, in order to make the claim in the first place and that, for those who are not computer literate, there might not be sufficient help for them in the right place.

Eilidh Whiteford: The hon. Lady makes an important point about accessibility. Does she share my concern that 36% of low-income households in Scotland do not have internet access at home?

Anne Begg: The figures the Committee received vary greatly. We were told that as many as 80% of claimants might struggle with some of the IT and that as few as 20% would not have internet access. Although some people might be able to use Facebook and other social media sites, that is quite different from making a claim that, by its nature, has to include very personal information. Many people who do not have a computer at home might not be able to use computers in the public domain, such as those in internet cafes, because of security issues. There are many questions about access to computers and IT.

Hywel Williams: Does the hon. Lady share my concern about the difficulties that people in extremely rural areas might experience, because their rural deprivation will be compounded by the introduction of the IT system?

Anne Begg: Perhaps the Minister would like to answer on that point. The Government said in their response to the Committee’s report that there will be a telephony system, which is good to know, although I understand that there will be no paper application form, so no one can phone up to request one. They expect about 45% of initial claimants to use that system to complete their claim. However, the person at the other end of the line will be using the same interface that online claimants see, so it will have to be designed in a way that works and is easy to understand. Access to a computer is one thing, but the customer-facing interface must also be easy to understand.

Margaret Ritchie: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a particular concern for those in rural communities who might not have the necessary access to broadband and therefore do not have internet access, which will place them at an extreme disadvantage?

Anne Begg: That is a problem in rural areas, but some urban areas, such as Glasgow, do not have superfast broadband either. Around 50% of claimants will be claiming at home on the internet, so that is really important.

Jane Ellison: The Committee, of which I am a member, identified those real concerns, but does the hon. Lady not agree that there are also opportunities? In my constituency, where English is a second language for many, digital by default offers the opportunity for translation and other services that will in many ways make a digital interface easier to use than a paper form.

Anne Begg: The Government’s whole point in doing this is to make the system easier, so hopefully it will be. If it is not easier at the end of the process, we really will have got everything wrong. In the process of introducing this fully, the Government will obviously have to address some of the concerns that hon. Members have raised.
	The Government’s response indicates that they expect only 50% to claim online and about 5% to get face-to-face interviews, which means 45% will claim through the telephony system. Perhaps the Minister can explain the wording in the Government’s response. It states:
	“Our target is that 50% of claims which can be made online will be made online in October 2013 when Universal Credit is launched nationally.”
	I am not sure that I understand that sentence. Does it mean 50% of the total number of people who will make a claim, or 50% of those who can make it online, which will not be everybody. I am not exactly sure what proportion the Government are talking about.
	The Government’s response mentions face-to-face interviews, which is good, but they are still for only 5% of cases, and they give not a hint about where the interviews might take place and what proportion of them are likely to be home visits. After all, a large number of people in the universal credit cohort will have severe disabilities. They might receive other benefits that they have claimed previously, but they will also be in the universal credit cohort.
	I am also glad to see that jobcentres are to have IADs—internet access devices—which sounds great. The Government response trumpets the fact that there will be computers in Jobcentre Plus offices. However, if we divide the number of computers by the number of Jobcentre Plus offices, we find that it works out at about three terminals per office, and I am not sure whether that will answer some of the questions about access to computers. Also, it appears that wi-fi is not yet available in Jobcentre Plus offices, although that is planned, as it should be available. Many people do not have a computer at home and will need to access their claim form through a public-access computer, whether in Jobcentre Plus or not. They will need help, and the Government’s response is not very clear about that. It does say that staff will be available, but it is very vague: it does not say how many or how much time they will have. Jobcentre Plus staff are already overworked. Will they have the time to sit down alongside someone until they have filled in their whole claim, or will they just get the screen up and leave them to it? For many people, that would not be enough help.
	The Government say in their response that they are liaising with local authorities to supply help. However, we all know that local authority budgets are already being squeezed year on year, and that a lot of welfare rights officers, where councils have them, are disappearing, if they have not already done so. There is also a squeeze
	on organisations such as Citizens Advice. This is such a big undertaking that it is incumbent on the Government to make sure that this help, of the necessary quantity and quality, is there and that people know how to access it. It has occurred to me that as some local authority staff will no longer be employed in administering housing benefit, they might be an experienced resource that the Government could call on to act as advisers in providing the help that many people will need to make an online claim.
	Another big area of concern about UC is that it will be paid once a month into a single bank account for each household. The Government’s response says that the Secretary of State has powers to vary the frequency of payments, but this would be time limited. It also says that the Department for Work and Pensions will try to identify claimants with, for instance, mental health or addiction problems who might not manage monthly payments, but suggests that help will be provided for only a limited period. The Government seem to think that a drug addict will somehow be able to learn how to budget properly after a couple of months. The essential problem is that getting a whole month’s money in their hand at once might be too tempting. I do not think that what the Government describe as “transition to monthly payments” after
	“getting help with monthly budgeting”
	is going to work in practice. Will the Minister clarify that?

Sheila Gilmore: As the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend knows, but I suspect that other people do not, that we have been hearing evidence about the apparent lack of information held by Jobcentre Plus about people’s circumstances in relation to being placed in the Work programme. Jobcentre Plus may therefore be unaware that people are homeless or have other difficult circumstances. What confidence does she have that it will be any better for the purpose of working out which people need this additional help?

Anne Begg: I am worried that the Government say bluntly in their response to our report that they are not going to provide a definition of a vulnerable claimant. Without that, it will be difficult for Jobcentre Plus to identify the individuals who need help. This is our biggest area of concern. We do not know whether someone will need to get into trouble before they can get help rather than already having been identified as needing it.

Kate Green: I do not know about my hon. Friend or other right hon. and hon. Members, but I get paid monthly and my main outgoing, my mortgage, is taken on the day that my salary goes into my bank account. I think that I have had that arrangement ever since I first had a mortgage. Most banks and mortgage companies tend to arrange things with their customers in that way. They ask on what day people are paid and then arrange that that is the day on which they take the mortgage payment. Has the Select Committee considered whether there is anything the Government could do to help landlords, particularly social landlords, to collect rent in that way on the day that universal credit is paid?

Anne Begg: We did not specifically consider that, but my hon. Friend has placed it on the record as something that the Government need to address. We do not know, either, to what extent they will allow direct payments into landlords’ hands. I hope that they are still considering that.

Glenda Jackson: Is it not the case that many of the people we discussed when we exercised our inquiries in the Select Committee have no access whatever to bank accounts, so that issue does not arise? Is it not also the case that social landlords are already extremely reluctant to accept housing benefit claimants, and that the idea that they will not be paid directly will reduce even further the already lamentable stock of affordable housing?

Anne Begg: I thank my hon. Friend. I was about to come to some of those issues.
	In our report we drew attention to the lack of suitable bank accounts. Again, there is not much detail in the Government’s response as to what progress has been made in persuading banks that they need to cater for this part of the market. Perhaps they need to be able to have some kind of direct debit facility. That would deal with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) about people being able to manage payments, particularly the big bulk of money that needs to come out of their account every month. Also, the payment must come out on the day after the money goes in, not the day before; that is another potential problem. Banks will need to be sensitive to this market. So far they have been very reluctant to provide products that will cater for these people, simply because there is not a lot of money in it for them. I hope that they do have a social conscience and will realise the importance of this, but the Government will need to do a bit of prodding.
	The monthly payment regime involving almost the whole of a household’s income makes it imperative that the Government get the delivery right. If something goes wrong with a claim or there is a delay, that could lead to real hardship for anything up to a month, or perhaps even longer. For some families, only child benefit and council tax benefit will sit outside universal credit, and all other payments will depend on the right amount of UC being paid at the right time into the single bank account.
	The move away from paying housing benefit directly to landlords and to the claimant instead is causing a great deal of alarm among social housing providers, and it may be acting as a barrier to the social rented sector renting at all to people who are on UC. This, alongside the introduction of what has been become known as the bedroom tax, could mean that many housing providers will have a large shortfall in their rental income.
	In its response, the DWP says that it does not intend to define “vulnerability” in case someone with complex needs falls outside the prescribed definitions and so does not get the help they genuinely need. Instead, full guidance will include
	“financial vulnerability factors that would trigger a conversation with a claimant about their budgeting needs”.
	I do not know how that is going to work in practice. We fear that the person who is struggling will be picked up after they have begun to struggle and are already in debt
	rather than at the early stages of their claim—or, rather, before the claim is made. There is a good chance that the people who struggle with their monthly payments will be the same people who find it difficult to pay their rent in full and on time, who do not have access to a computer, who are not computer literate, and who need face-to-face help in making a benefit claim because they do not have basic literacy. The DWP is unwilling to provide a definition of who is a vulnerable claimant, yet there is a whole list of things that would act as a pointer to the fact that someone may be vulnerable. I am really concerned about the danger that claimants will get into financial difficulties before any help is provided.
	It seems from the Government’s response that the first solution will be budgeting support, rather than an alternative payment method. Perhaps the Minister could clarify that. How long will somebody have to wait before their rent is paid directly to the landlord or their benefit is paid more frequently? For how long will those solutions last? I understand that the DWP is running six direct payment demonstration projects that are due to run until June 2013. How are those demonstration projects going and how will their findings be incorporated into the roll-out of universal credit?
	Our report points out that there is a need to decide how passported benefits will be dealt with under UC. I do not think that things have moved on much. Apart from the temporary solution for free school meals, the Government do not seem to have any ideas about how they will deal with that matter. Again, the Minister might be able to shed some light on that today. It is important that passported benefits operate effectively because for many people, they make the difference between a bare income and one on which their family can live.
	One of the problems with passported benefits is that the Government have not managed to iron out the cliff edge that might be involved. The whole point of universal credit was to smooth away all the cliff edges. However, once passported benefits are put into the equation, a lot of the cliff edges come back.
	It is important for other Departments to know how passported benefits will operate. They have always used the payment of social security benefits as proxies for certain qualifications, which has made it much easier and cheaper for them to administer their benefits. If there is nothing in universal credit that signposts a claimant as someone who should receive other things, such as free prescriptions, it could land the Department of Health, the Department for Education, other Departments and local authorities with a large administrative burden in order to work out who qualifies for other benefits.

Glenda Jackson: Free school meals are linked directly to the pupil premium. If there is a reduction in free school meals, it is entirely possible that there will also be a reduction in funding for schools. The implications of universal credit are infinitely greater than just the effects on the actual claimant.

Anne Begg: That is why it is important that the Government get it right. I appreciate that it has been very difficult, but before the first claimants go on to UC, which is in just over a month, they need to start
	answering these questions. They certainly have to have an answer before it is rolled out to other claimant groups in October. They do not have very long.
	This morning, when the Select Committee was taking evidence on the Work programme, we heard that universal credit has implications for the Work programme. There are questions about how people will be labelled when they go into the Work programme because the predecessor benefits, such as jobseeker’s allowance and employment and support allowance, will disappear under universal credit as people move on to the single benefit.
	There is one benefit change that flies in the face of all of this and undermines what UC was intended to do. The localisation of council tax support will add complexity back into the system and introduce local variations, which could undermine the withdrawal rates that should make work pay. I have already talked about computer programmes. I have said that the customer-facing screens must be right and that, behind that, the programmes must calculate what a claimant should get and pay it into the bank. Those computers will have to speak to the HMRC computers so that the real-time information can be fed in. However, because of the proposals on council tax support, they must also interface with the local government computer system, which apparently is called ATLAS. I do not know whether that just applies to England and Wales. That is another potential IT difficulty that could cause problems for people. On top of that, it will be more difficult for claimants to work out whether they will be better off in work than it would have been if council tax support had been included in universal credit. That will rely on working out the tapers and the disregards.
	To come back full circle, the delivery of universal credit will depend on the smooth delivery of the IT—not only the IT controlled by the Department for Work and Pensions, but that controlled by HMRC and local authorities. That is a big ask. My final question to the Minister is: how is that going?

Nigel Mills: It is a pleasure to follow the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee and to speak about the report. This is the first report that I had the pleasure of working on when I joined the Committee. I feel slightly guilty in that I missed all the evidence sessions because I did not join the Committee until it started to write the report. I therefore missed the hard work and did the fun bit at the end.
	I should probably start where the Chair of the Select Committee finished—the complex IT system. Those of us who have followed the news of new, large IT systems from the outside over many years would be brave or foolish to be entirely optimistic that a new, super IT system will work flawlessly from day one. Perhaps the Minister will assure us that that will be the case, that the IT has worked in the various tests and trials, and that it will work when we switch over to having live feeds of millions of entries from HMRC.

Richard Drax: I, too, am concerned about putting all our eggs in one IT basket. Would it not be sensible to retain the staff in local authorities—in my constituency, they are about to be laid off—so that there is a back-up, at least until it is proved that the system works?

Nigel Mills: I see the sense in that, but it would involve a large cost.
	Speaking as someone who still does the weekly payroll for a small charity with six employees, I am looking forward to the time when I have to input the data into the HMRC system weekly or monthly, rather than making the PAYE payment that is due once a quarter. I think that the system will work quite successfully for large employers that are used to operating PAYE systems, where they can hit a “submit” button every month and the data transfers over on the right date. However, for a lot of small employers, this will be a big change in their procedures from having to give the payroll data to the Revenue once a year. That will be a test.
	Perhaps the Minister will update us on how confident he is that the systems will be able to interact and that the millions of entries will make their way to the right place at the right time, so that all the people who will be relying on it for their universal credit payments will receive the right amount on the right day, especially as the system rolls out and more people keep being added.
	It is worth saying, as the Committee noted in its report, that there is broad agreement with the principle of a single payment that makes it easy for people to move in and out of work, with their income going up or down so that they get the right benefit at the right time. We all want that to work. Clearly, if it does not work, it will leave people in a whole new mess.
	That is not to say that people are not in a mess now. We all have constituents who have struggled with the existing system of multiple claims. There are people whose tax credits have gone wrong, perhaps because their income has changed during the year and they have forgotten to notify HMRC or HMRC has lost the notification, who have ended up with a large bill at the end of the year that they were not expecting and did not have the money left for. We are not trying to reform an ideal system or even a good or acceptable system; we are trying to move from the existing pretty poor and complex system to a system that is easier to understand and easier to deal with. However, there are clearly issues with any new IT system.
	The report was right to recognise that the new system, which we all broadly welcome, will work for the majority of claimants who are IT literate, understand the system and can update their circumstances and check what is going on. It also considered those for whom that is not the case and who will struggle with the new system—perhaps because they are not IT literate or, for whatever reason, have not got a bank account—and struggle to manage their own affairs. However, such people will probably already be struggling with the existing system in which they have to make multiple claims and try to manage the situation. We are not talking about people who are fine with the existing system but will suddenly have problems with the new one; they will already be experiencing some of those problems.
	I will not do a wide sweep of all the issues mentioned by the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee because that would be pointless repetition, but I will pick up some of the main themes. I support a system that, by default, is accessed electronically rather than on paper—that has to be the right way forward. At some point, the system must be accessed via IT by default and not choice, and now is probably the right time for such a transition. Statistics state that 78% of working-age people
	who claim benefits already use the internet, and about half of those use it every day. There is not a huge number of people with no IT access at all, although the 22% who are not regular users of the internet will need some support.

Anne-Marie Morris: I am also a Member of the Work and Pensions Committee. As my hon. Friend will recall, we discussed the development of specific apps that will make it even easier for those who are IT literate and can deal with a claim on their phone.

Nigel Mills: Yes, that is recommended in the report and I think the Government promised that by 2014 there will be a separate app for universal credit. Currently, 92% of jobs advertised require some level of IT skills, so encouraging people to become more confident and use computers to claim their benefits is a move in the right direction. I agree that we must give the right support to those who cannot do that or have not done it previously, and I hope the Minister will explain to the House how that will be done.
	The Government’s response to the report mentions computer terminals in jobcentres. I am not sure whether I have yet seen that on the ground and how we will get enough computers in jobcentres for people who need to claim, or how people will deal with the regular monitoring of their benefits. Universal credit is not a once-only application in which a person can sit with someone who does the form for them and that is it. The entire system relies on updating that will require regular IT access, not just a one-off.

Kate Green: The hon. Gentleman may not know the answer, but does he have any idea how long it will take to make a claim on average, particularly with regard to the point made by the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) about filling in the form on the phone? If it will take more than half a minute or so, it is unlikely that people will be able to cope with that on the phone, and they may struggle to do it online at all.

Nigel Mills: It would be very optimistic to assume that the application form will take half a minute. I have not seen the form, but I have not seen any Government form that takes half a minute for a long time—[Interruption.] Does the Minister wish to answer the question?

Mark Hoban: I think we must be careful and not underestimate where people are at the moment. The vast majority of claims for jobseeker’s allowance are made over the telephone and an increasing proportion are made online. We are not entering uncharted territory and I am surprised that Opposition Members seem keen to keep us in a luddite past. We need to tackle the digital divide, and this is a very good way of doing it.

Nigel Mills: I am grateful to the Minister although I am not sure we got an idea of how long the application form will take to fill in. Perhaps we will get that later.

Hywel Williams: Speaking as a non-luddite, I want everyone to be able to partake of the system. I am not a member of the Work and Pensions Committee but perhaps I can ask the hon. Gentleman—or even tempt
	the Minister—to say whether any attention was given to applications in Welsh in Wales, where Welsh is to be treated on the basis of equality with English? Perhaps the Minister will leap to his feet and reassure me on that.

Nigel Mills: Despite what some people think, Amber Valley is not in Wales so I am afraid that the use of the Welsh language is not an issue I have to worry myself or my constituents with. I will leave that point for the Minister.
	The next area of concern is the single monthly payment per household, and making that replicate what most people in work receive as a salary is a sensible step. We are not talking about people who only receive benefits; people in work will receive universal credit on top of that, and we are trying to encourage them to work more hours and get more money, at which point their benefit will drop. In an ideal world, a single monthly payment that matches timing with salary must be a step forward. We are trying to help people get back into work and not face extra barriers created by the benefit system. Clearly there are issues, however, and some people will not be able to cope with one single monthly payment. We must consider how we will help them through that, deal with the exemption system, and find out that they are not coping before they get into so much debt that they cannot get out of it. It will be interesting to see the progress on new bank accounts, especially the jam jar system, although we have not yet heard how many providers are willing to offer such a system.

Jane Ellison: I am glad that my hon. Friend mentioned jam jar accounts because they are important. We have spoken previously about this issue, but it is one on which we are all urging the Minister to give the banks a really good kick. As I said in a previous speech, such accounts are one demonstrable way that the banks could make amends for what the public perceive to be a pretty poor show over the past few years.

Nigel Mills: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We need to know soon how many providers are interested in that system and what the Government’s proposals are. People will be rolling into universal credit soon, and we must understand what their bank accounts will look like to ensure the system works. I have heard lobbying groups present interesting ideas about the real advantages of the jam jar system. People can choose to have their rent payment moved into a separate account so that it goes out on the right day and they cannot accidentally spend it on something else. Applications that use payment cards or jam jar bank accounts can produce useful solutions. Perhaps we can introduce a system under which people have the chance to choose their preferences. People must choose to set money aside for certain bills, rather than be forced in some draconian state-controlled manner and told how to spend their money, but an update on the issue would be useful.
	I also want to consider the impact of this system on people who are self-employed. It is clearly right that they state each month what profit they have made so that any benefit they are due can be worked out. It is equally right that we encourage them to work hard and make a minimum level of profit and not somehow get
	round the system that applies to people looking for paid employment. I am a little concerned that we will end up with two different reporting and accounting systems. For universal credit people will have to report their monthly profit or income based on some kind of calculation, yet for tax purposes they will have to use a completely different calculation. That could leave them with two different sets of books and calculations which could be hugely complicated and they may end up with some true-up at the end. Hopefully, people can get some assurance that what is expected for universal credit is the same as HMRC expects at the end of the year. It could be nice and simple—people could hit a “total” button on the universal credit system and it will say what their annual profits have been.

Anne-Marie Morris: Despite that complexity, presumably my hon. Friend would welcome the change to allow businesses that have become insolvent not to be written off, so that effectively over a five-year period they can come back without all the penalties that exist in the current system.

Nigel Mills: Yes, we want to encourage people to have another go if they wish—that makes perfect sense.
	In conclusion, this system has been generally welcomed and we hope it is a real step forward. We are concerned, however, that for some more vulnerable people in society some of the changes will prove too much. We must ensure that we do not leave a whole load of people behind in a difficult situation, and that when the system goes live, the Government have plans in place to ensure that a worse situation does not develop.

Glenda Jackson: The hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) said that 92% of jobs advertised require some computer literacy. I do not know what the requirements are on that side of the House, but on this side computer literacy is not a requirement to be an MP, for which I am extremely grateful because I frankly admit to being an IT illiterate.
	Before I continue, I wish to apologise to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to both Front Benchers, because I have a previous engagement and will not be here for the wind-up speeches.
	I do not wish to re-rehearse what my hon. Friend the Chair of the Select so succinctly detailed as the bedrock of the Committee’s examination of these issues. With all due respect to the Minister, he—like every Minister from the Department who has appeared before the Committee to answer questions on these issues—has been overwhelmingly over-sanguine about how easy this process will be for some of the most vulnerable people in our society. That is the central issue for me.
	The Department has failed to come anywhere near defining what will be meant by “vulnerability”. We have had representations, for example, from the organisations that campaign for and on behalf of specific groups of vulnerable people, not least the Royal National Institute of Blind People and the British Deaf Association. Many of the mental health organisations have also campaigned with us, because it may be possible for a person suffering from a mental illness to be capable of
	doing everything on one day—probably even running the country—but the day after they can be incapable of getting out of bed, and they certainly would not be able to access a claim. We all have cases—even before this system is introduced—of people failing to meet the requirements of the recent changes made by the Department, such as the need to attend an Atos examination.
	My overriding concern is that some people—for a variety of reasons, most of which they do not have any control over—will be allowed to drop through the net. They could end up with no support and, even more frighteningly, no one would know that. I have had occasion to raise individual constituency cases with the Minister. I also remember raising with the Secretary of State the case of an individual who is agoraphobic. He has not been outside his house for 35 years. His elderly mother is responsible for maintaining and caring for him, but she is not going to live for ever. The Secretary of State said—I paraphrase—“Oh well, we’ll have house visits, we’ll ensure that someone can treat with that individual.” That is all very fine and good, but it does not happen.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) said in her opening remarks, 8.5 million people will be affected by this change, and many of them will never have had any contact with a piece of IT equipment. That is my first concern.
	My second concern is the security of the individual’s claim. They will be expected to access terminals in internet cafes and public libraries or use their phone. We are all warned to hide our phones because they could be stolen, and heaven only knows how long it would take to fill in the form over the phone. I am especially concerned that it would be more than possible for someone to steal an individual’s details to defraud the benefits system. I have asked whether someone could be validated to make a claim on behalf of an individual, and I have to say that I did not get a categorical answer that calmed my concerns. I know of cases under the existing system in which someone who regularly claims benefit has a lot of friends on the day the money is paid, but they disappear with the money about half an hour later. This is already happening to some of the most vulnerable people in our society, and this obsession with all claims being made online will only increase the possibility of people being cheated in that way.
	All hon. Members broadly welcome the idea of universal credit, but the details of its delivery to the most vulnerable in our society are a long way from being defined by the Department. Those who have spoken in the debate so far have mentioned the need for additional resources. We all know about the work force in our local jobcentres being reduced, and that the voluntary organisations that have been of such wonderful assistance to our constituents—such as citizens advice bureaux, voluntary organisations and local authorities—are seeing a big diminution in staff numbers, so even fewer people will be able to afford advice to someone who simply cannot handle what happens when they look at a monitor. Added to that is the possibility that the Department’s budget will be drastically slashed. If the Ministry of Defence makes its case for money to come out of the DWP, the resources to assist claimants could be greatly diminished.

Anne-Marie Morris: Does the hon. Lady agree that if the new scheme makes claiming easier and simpler for the majority—say, 75% or 80%--it should mean that the resources that exist, albeit potentially diminished, will be more than adequate for the individuals who are vulnerable and need the help?

Glenda Jackson: I would like to be able to say yes, but I am old enough and cynical enough to be able to say categorically, “No, it never, ever works like that.” If 75% are sailing along on the crest of a wave, the 35% are always, in my experience, left paddling in the shadows, and nobody notices when they are waving. I am very concerned about this for the reasons that I have already elucidated.
	I am also concerned about the possibility of the Department having to slash its budget even further—I have already mentioned the MOD rolling its tanks on to the Department’s lawn. The Secretary of State is already saying that because of the supposed invasion of these shores by new citizens of the European Union he will have to address the whole issue of welfare benefits all over again. I suspect that has a political basis and has nothing to do with the delivery of benefits, but if there are to be reductions—no one has argued that the Government have managed to tackle the issue of our as yet far from booming economy—these issues will come into play further down the line. There will be more and more complexities for many people who already find every single day of their lives a struggle, from the minute they open their eyes in the morning until they go to bed at night. Those are the people on whom we need to concentrate and I hope that the Department will do just that.

Nick de Bois: It is to the credit of the Secretary of State and the Government that, as we have seen so far today, the issue being debated is not whether we should try to introduce universal credit into the welfare equation. The level of the debate has been fascinating, and I commend the Chair of the Select Committee on her contribution. I was particularly taken by her succinct and well made observation that whichever political party brings in the change, there will be unforeseen consequences, and the issue is the Department’s ability to deal with those consequences. We cannot do much more about them—by their very nature they are unforeseen—but the House will rightly look to the Department to work as assiduously and quickly as possible, because they will affect people’s real lives.
	It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson). I have yet to agree with her on anything, but she touched on the subject of individual fraud. I do not wish to alarm her, but I calculate that the bank account running the universal credit system will be one of the largest in the world. I hope our security systems and advice are up to scratch, because that would be an expensive fraud for all of us. I am not making light of it, but individual applications may be a smaller part of the problem if our security advisers have taken care of that one. I am sure that they have and that there is nothing the Minister needs to lose sleep over.
	It is to the credit of the House that, in discussing whether universal credit is a good idea, we have not
	entered into yah-boo politics. However, while the House rightly focuses on vulnerable citizens who may be caught up in the changes, it is important that we do not reduce the issue to a denominator that means we should not press ahead with them. We should all aspire to change, and not hold back because of a fear that smaller groups have the potential to lose out. Of course, they must not lose out as a result of some of the issues I will come on to talk about.
	It is important that we distinguish between vulnerable people and those who presently do not have skills. I am not sure that someone who cannot complete an online form is vulnerable, but I argue that they are unskilled. Our goal surely must be for 100% of benefit claimants to be able to claim online, notwithstanding the hon. Lady’s self-declared inability to do so, something with which I understand perfectly and empathise. It must be our goal. It would be more economical and user-friendly once people are conversant with it.
	In my constituency, if I accept the statistics suggested for those unable to complete a claim online, 600 out of 3,500 claimants may not be able to do so. However, I would rather find a system that suits the vast majority of people, and then work hard to bring others up to scratch. It is good to see the use of computers and advice being available in jobcentres. Three computers in each jobcentre may not be enough—although I suspect we will probably have more in areas of greater need, and fewer in areas with less need—and it is right that the telephone service will be in place for a considerable time. However, I want us to aspire to better systems and not be held back. It is crucial to seek to get everyone online not just to meet the needs of universal credit, but for the development of personal skills. We cannot run from the digital age. It is here and we will all have to use it whether we like it or not. Whether we are luddites or reformers, it is here and that development must be one of the fringe benefits of what we are trying to do.
	On direct payments to landlords, my understanding—I am very happy to be corrected if I am wrong—is that under the Government’s pilots the majority of people are meeting their rent payments in full and on time. My understanding is that in the first four months, from more than 6,000 social tenants who were paid their housing benefit directly, rent collection rates stood at 92%. If that is accurate, it indicates that the pilots are travelling in the right direction. Of course, that means 8% are not doing well. However, I support the view taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), who argued that we will be able to invest more time to bring that 8%—if that is what the figure turns out to be—the care and attention they need. I recognise the cynicism mentioned by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn, but that is what we are here to deal with. We should not allow ourselves to repeat the mistakes of the past. We should learn from the past and be able to put extra time and resource into looking after those people so that they become more self-reliant.
	On self-reliance, in the past decade or 12 years or so, approximately 2 million children were brought up in households where no one was working. No Government ever set out to achieve such a thing; it has happened for
	a number of reasons. However, it has contributed enormously to creating a state of mind whereby so many people look at what they cannot do, as opposed to what they might aspire to do. From a life of dependency, I am sure that they would prefer to move to a life of independence. I welcome the inherent measures in universal credit and the wider welfare reforms, because they enable people to move towards taking responsibility for improving their own lives, finances and skill sets. The state will never be able to do everything for everyone—that philosophy is wrong. We have almost empowered a generation to believe that the state will provide them with an answer to their problems. That is not the case in the real world—we know that. I therefore welcome the measures warmly, as they will provide a step-change for people towards independence and taking more control over their lives.
	I listen carefully to the members of the Select Committee, who have been extremely thoughtful in discussing potential areas of weakness. As a constituency MP, like all of us in this House, I inevitably attract people who are caught up in grey areas. We have a duty—indeed, a passion—to help advise Government where those grey areas are and to make recommendations for changes. Sometimes we fight the bureaucracy that can so often stifle individuals, many of them vulnerable, into almost giving up hope of receiving the help that we have decided they deserve. I fully anticipate that there will still be work to do, but I engage constructively in that process, because I recognise that any system that is introduced is bound to create a grey area in which some people will be trapped. However, that is not a reason not to proceed; it is simply a reason to be flexible and to move forward, advise and gain consent to deal with those issues.
	I conclude by saying that the House is at its best when it is arguing about detail and trying to highlight potential flaws. I welcome the cross-Chamber support for the big idea of this reform. The shadow Secretary of State has been characteristically robust on many occasions, and I am sure he is being so on Twitter right now. Some of his public remarks predicting complete doom and gloom for the system are perhaps uncharacteristic, because the mood of the House seems to be, quite sensibly, “We are behind this. The Government may not have got everything right and we will watch them on that score.” That is probably the right way to go and I hope that he genuinely believes that this is the right thing to do.

Liam Byrne: The hon. Gentleman is right that we support this idea in principle, but we have grave and growing concerns about implementation. He will have seen reports in The Guardian that prompt questions about whether there are IT personnel or contractors at Accenture, Atos Origin, Oracle, Red Hat, CACI or IBM UK who have been stepped down, or in any way notified by the Department, that they are to “suspend work”. We hope the Minister will be able to return that in his remarks.

Nick de Bois: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to make that point.

Mark Hoban: rose—

Nick de Bois: I will give way to the Minister, who no doubt will want to answer the right hon. Gentleman’s point, in a moment. I do not want us to set a tone that
	will undermine our overall goal, but of course if the shadow Secretary of State has concerns, he should raise them. I am sure the Minister is keen to answer them.

Mark Hoban: The shadow Secretary of State has been touting this story for months. [Interruption.] No, it has been longer than that. The last outing was in today’s Guardian. I want to make it clear that nobody has walked off the project; all the contractors are in place and the project is on schedule to be delivered at the end of April. Now, if he thinks the idea is good in theory, it is about time he supported it. It is working and the contractors are in place, doing the job and ensuring that the pilots will be up and running at the end of April.

Nick de Bois: I am glad to have spirited into being some Front-Bench dialogue.

Jane Ellison: My hon. Friend is right that we must be conscious that these are vulnerable people, which is what the Committee report was about. Exaggerating for political purposes the possible problems, which we have all acknowledged, runs the danger of most alarming and leading astray the people we most want to help.

Nick de Bois: My hon. Friend makes extremely well the point I made so badly.
	The shadow Secretary of State knows the history of Government IT systems. Given that history, it is inevitable that there will be some genuine concerns. When I was rolling out IT systems in my company, it filled me with horror; I knew we would end up exceeding the budget and that the timetable would come under threat. In those days, we dealt with it by shadowing the new system with the old system. I give credit to the Government for not having gone for the big bang effect and for seeking to roll out the system gradually. Had I been in their position, I would probably have made the same decision, but the proof will be in the pudding. Nevertheless, they have learned from previous mistakes. I was delighted to hear the Minister’s confident assessment, which I have no reason to doubt, and I think they have taken every reasonable step. Will there be problems? I am certain of it, but I do not think that they will be insurmountable.

Margaret Ritchie: I acknowledge the good work that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, has done on benefits and the implementation of universal credit, particularly the impact on vulnerable people. The Committee highlighted the fact that vulnerable people are usually benefit claimants and so will be subject to the overhaul of the benefits system, and that many communities, and particularly those who will need it the most, will be deeply impacted by the online universal credit—admittedly, a telephony service will be available—because they will have great difficult accessing it.
	It is important that the DWP can implement the IT system. Back in 2008, in my former life as Minister for Social Development in Northern Ireland, I introduced a parallel system for household fuel payments. It was outside the benefits system, but it required the help of the DWP and was an extremely difficult job. There were people who fell outside it who should have been eligible,
	but because of the nature of the IT system things proved difficult. I say that by way of warning. Also, owing to topographical difficulties, some claimants might not have broadband access, which raises issues about payment methods, and then there is the question of passported benefits.
	My party has been against the introduction of universal credit from the outset. It is a misguided and draconian change to the benefits system that will neither save money nor encourage people into employment nor protect the most vulnerable. We are for welfare reform, but not for unfair reform. We recognise the need for a simpler, more accessible benefits system, but these reforms are an attack on the most vulnerable and will actually end up costing the taxpayer more through transition and administration costs.
	I am extremely concerned about the long-term impact of the tone that the Government have taken throughout this and previous debates on welfare reform. The persecution of those on welfare—labelled “skivers”—is socially divisive and acts to marginalise and ostracise many people suffering disability, illness and impairment. It is casting down the very people whom the Government claim to be encouraging into work.
	As the Minister will be aware, social security provision is devolved to Northern Ireland and implemented under a separate system known as parity legislation. In a previous life, I had to implement some of it. Under that system, we normally have little scope for variation, which means that we will be subject to the worst elements of these measures. I welcome the flexibility arrangements the Government introduced in Northern Ireland enabling split payments—two payments a month, rather than one—and payments to be made directly to landlords, rather than to the claimant, but the core of the changes remains and will be extremely damaging for our people and economy.
	We need additional flexibility, owing to our high level of disability—a throwback to the troubles, which left people scarred by violence and terrorism—and higher percentage of people dependent on benefits. I ask the Minister and his colleagues to work with the Minister for Social Development in Northern Ireland to introduce that flexibility. Earlier today, I asked the Minister of State in the Northern Ireland Office about this subject in Northern Ireland questions, but his reply left me aghast: he said we should be getting more people into work. That is fine and laudable, if the work opportunities are there, but they are not, so let’s get real. We need to support these people, not marginalise and persecute them. These measures are likely to push more people into poverty and, in doing so, increase the welfare budget.

Jane Ellison: I am clearly not as familiar with the situation in Northern Ireland as the hon. Lady, but I do not recognise her description of persecution, marginalisation and ostracism. The Committee accepted that there were definitely some people about whom we were far more worried than others, but we took the general view that the system had a reasonable chance of working for the majority of people, even allowing for implementation issues. I just do not recognise her description of the system.

Margaret Ritchie: I was saying that there were particular circumstances prevalent in Northern Ireland that perhaps did not exist in other parts of the UK because of the
	higher number of people who were more vulnerable and dependent on benefits. We are coming out of a conflict situation and, as a result of that legacy of conflict, more people rely on benefits and are, through no fault of their own, unable to access or find work. Those job opportunities, which might exist here in Britain, are not there.

Jane Ellison: rose—

Margaret Ritchie: I would like to finish this point and move on. The third report by the Work and Pensions Committee states:
	“We consider that the implementation timetable is ambitious and that there is significant further work to be carried out to ensure that the needs of the most vulnerable claimants can be met.”
	Let me turn to the cost of universal credit. The rationale given by the Government is that the legislation is about making work pay and helping people into work. However, the driving motivation appears to be cutting costs, with those on welfare easier to scapegoat than the tax avoiders in society. Moreover, the figures suggest that, rather than saving money, the changes will increase the welfare budget. The Government’s own impact assessment suggested that £2 billion was set aside to fund the transition to universal credit in the 2010 spending review period and that net transfer payments from the Government to households would be around £0.3 billion higher once universal credit was fully implemented and transitional protection exhausted, while the Institute for Fiscal Studies has valued the long-run cost of universal credit at around £1.7 billion in 2014-15 prices. Furthermore, it has been stated that £18 million—£13 million in resource and £5 million in capital—will be delivered to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to cover the costs associated with implementing universal credit
	That suggests that the new system will be not just ineffective, but expensive. Experience suggests to me that the costs of such a project are likely to go up rather than down, once the projections meet the reality, as was the case with the change from incapacity benefit to workplace capability assessments. That has been a difficult issue in Northern Ireland and a traumatic experience for those who have been put through it. The resulting volume of appeals—a high proportion of which were successful—illustrates just how ineffective the changes were. I feel—I suppose I say this with a certain level of temerity—that the Government do not seem to be heeding that lesson. I fear that there will be an even more catastrophic impact when universal credit is fully introduced.
	I have made it clear that I am against the substance of this welfare reform and its introduction, and I am dubious that it will actually save any money, but I also feel that there are likely to be a number of technical and administrative issues that could be extremely problematic and that we could run into financial problems as the system is rolled out in Northern Ireland in April 2014. I ask the Minister to look at those. I would also ask the Chair of the Committee to look into this and perhaps work with the Social Development Committee in the Northern Ireland Assembly to see whether these issues can be worked through. The project has already been delayed because of IT problems, and I have had very little reassurance that that will not happen again.

Mark Hoban: Just to be clear, the project has not been delayed because of IT problems. That is a complete red herring. The hon. Lady should not read the stories that the shadow Secretary of State puts in The Guardian.

Margaret Ritchie: I thank the Minister for his intervention.

Stephen Timms: The hon. Lady is absolutely right: the project has been delayed. Ministers told us for a long time after the announcement of universal credit that all new applications for out-of-work benefits would be treated as universal credit applications from October this year. It is now absolutely clear that that date will not be achieved. It might be a year later, or even some time after that, but the project has certainly been delayed.

Margaret Ritchie: I thank the shadow Minister for his intervention; I absolutely agree with him. The Minister will not be surprised to hear that I disagreed with him, because experience has taught us these things.
	I seek clarification and an update from the Minister on the implementation of a computer system for the social security system in Northern Ireland to administer universal credit in line with the flexibilities that will be implemented there, notwithstanding—because of our special circumstances—the other flexibilities that I hope will be introduced. I understand that these are currently subject to negotiation and discussion between the Minister for Social Development and the appropriate DWP Ministers. What feedback will there be and what facility will be employed to use the lessons from the initial pathfinder areas in England to inform subsequent roll-out in Northern Ireland?
	Governments do not have a great track record on implementing new IT systems, as seen with the Child Support Agency, the e-Border programme and the health service. The new universal credit system will likely require an even more complex system, incorporating real-time processing from pay-as-you-earn records. The Committee’s report makes it clear that there are significant concerns about the system’s capacity to operate between local and central Government. I fear that this will be even more challenging in the devolved Administrations. How satisfied is the Minister that there will be no more significant delays or cost overruns for the new universal credit payment system? Can he say with certainty that he will not be back before the House a year from now, explaining away delays and expensive setbacks?
	Added to that, universal credit is to use digital self-service by default. That might sound good, but I have had little reassurance about the fact that the most vulnerable in society—particularly the elderly—are less likely to have access to computers or to be as proficient with newer technology. Reference has already been made to that issue in this debate, as well as to access to the internet and broadband, so I will not dwell on it further. However, notwithstanding our position on welfare reform and universal credit, I say to the Minister that it is important that the delivery of this benefit does not impact further on the vulnerable and disadvantaged in our community. It is important that the right systems are in place to ensure delivery is enabled, so that the most vulnerable can live a good life with some degree of benefit.

Greg Mulholland: I am delighted to take part in this debate, although I feel like something of an interloper. As a member of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions in the previous Parliament, I hope that the Chair, the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), and her colleagues will be happy that I am contributing.
	Let me start by paying tribute to the Committee and the Chair for the hugely important work they continue to do. It is quite right, because of the hugely significant nature of these reforms—we can all absolutely agree on that—that they should have the full and continual expert scrutiny of the Work and Pensions Committee, involving both the MPs and the staff. I am sure that that will continue to be the case, and that is quite right.
	One of the big, thorny issues that we discussed on a number of occasions in the Committee in the previous Parliament was the over-complexity of the benefits system, which we said needed to be addressed. The report that we published in July 2007 said that
	“our current benefits system is stunningly complicated…simplification should be a key priority for the DWP…We believe there are opportunities for merging some benefits, aligning the rules of eligibility and, where means-tests are necessary, the information required from claimants.”
	Therefore, while praising the Committee for its scrutiny, the issues it has rightly raised and the points on which it has rightly challenged the Government, we can be in no doubt that, when scrutinising the Government in the past the Committee was clear that there had to be reform. Indeed, Ministers including the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) told us during that Parliament that they agreed that there had to be some simplification and that the issue had to be addressed. I think that we all can, or should, agree on the principle. Of course, the devil is always in the detail and it is right that any reform—not just one as significant as this—is fully and properly scrutinised. That is why I welcome the information that the Government have provided in response to the Committee and the fact that we are having this debate and that the Committee will continue to push until its concerns are satisfied.
	We have to remind ourselves that the reform is designed primarily to simplify the benefits system, which has to be done. The other big issue that we continually raised in the Committee during the previous Parliament is that we need to do more to incentivise people to work and to make work pay. There was cross-party agreement and, indeed, ministerial agreement from the previous Government that it was essential to ensure that benefits were sensibly targeted.
	The hon. Member for Aberdeen South will remember our trip to the university of York, where we sat through a number of interesting and detailed presentations. We looked at mind-bogglingly complicated graphs of the current benefits system and the tapering. We were told by academics who were more expert on this than we could ever be that, without significant change and proper tapering, the cliff edge would continue and too many people who want to work hard would find that it did not make sense for them to do so when they could earn similar amounts from benefits, which is a choice that they do not want to have to make. That is the thrust of what the Government are addressing.
	It is also important to say that this is not a cost-cutting measure. As the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) has said, it will not save money for the Department for Work and Pensions, but it is not designed to do so. The Government estimate that it will cost £2 billion more to ensure not only that universal credit supports the people who need support—which is, of course, the primary purpose of any benefits system—but that it has smooth and transparent incentives to work. It will, however, lead to longer-term savings for the taxpayer, because it will make work more financially beneficial. That will also benefit the Treasury, because those people will then pay their taxes and be part of society by contributing in the way that they would wish.
	The Committee has been right to challenge the Government on the issue of those who will gain more and those who will receive less as a result of universal credit. Ministers have made clear that they believe that 3 million families will be better off and that 350,000 children and 500,000 working-age adults will be taken out of poverty, while acknowledging that 1.4 million people would see a drop in income were it not for the transitional protection, which is why that protection is so important. The Institute for Fiscal Studies also estimates that 2.5 million people will be unaffected.

Bob Stewart: Does the hon. Gentleman agree, however, that there will always be a system for looking after those people who actually need help with this benefit?

Greg Mulholland: Absolutely. During the previous Parliament, there was consensus on the Committee, in the House and, indeed, among Members on both Front Benches that we need to do more to ensure that the benefits system is targeted on those who need it most and that it makes financial sense for those who can and want to work—whether that be full or part time, as appropriate to their other commitments—to do so. No one is suggesting that that is an easy challenge—it certainly is not, as the Committee fully acknowledged during the previous Parliament—but it has to be taken on and I am delighted that the Government have chosen to do so. It is also crucial to ensure that lessons are learned from the pathfinders. I remember looking at some of the pilots in the previous Parliament. It is essential that, during the implementation stage, the Department always takes full heed of the lessons and then makes changes as appropriate.
	I want to comment briefly on a few of the issues that the Committee has rightly focused on. We can all agree that it is essential that universal credit works for everybody—for all claimants, not just the majority. It would not be a success if a group of people were significantly disadvantaged by its introduction, which is clearly not the Government’s intention.
	On the move to a single monthly payment, I do not think anyone would disagree with the principle that it makes sense for people to have a sense of the money that they are given, to enable them to pay their rent and buy food, and that it is helpful for them to budget, as that will equip them to do so when they find work, as we all hope they will if they are able to do so. The Committee was right, however, to raise its concern that the switch to a monthly payment presents a significant challenge for people and families on a low income, and the Government have rightly responded to those concerns.
	The biggest concern, which also involves landlords, relates to direct payments. That is not to say that the arrangements will be a terrible thing in all circumstances. The hon. Member for Aberdeen South will remember that we had exactly the same conversations when the local housing allowance was introduced. We must accept that, although the arrangements will work for some people, there must be a swift acknowledgement in cases where they are not working, before huge arrears can build up. Will the Minister clarify that such a safeguard will be put into the system, so that if things start going wrong, alternative arrangements can be made as swiftly as possible? Those could involve direct payments to the landlord, fortnightly payments or the splitting of payments. I will be interested to hear a reinforcement of the Government’s response to the Committee on that matter.
	On the digital question, I believe that it is perfectly sensible to move to an online benefits system. That is happening throughout the welfare system and throughout many parts of the public sector, and it will result in a welcome reduction in costs, as long as we get the IT right. I am now a member of the Public Administration Committee, and this is a matter that the Committee will be looking at, following the publication of its critical report on the disaster of the NHS IT system.
	People have rightly expressed concern, however, about those who do not have access to the internet. Many of those on low incomes might not be able to afford the necessary technology—a PC or a smartphone, for example—and older working people who are approaching pension age might never have had any experience of that technology. The Committee has therefore rightly pushed Ministers on this point, and alternative provision has been made, including contact by phone or in writing, or through a home visit. It is right that that should be spelled out so that we can be clear what will happen to those people who cannot reasonably access the internet. I urge the Minister to keep that matter under review, particularly when the pathfinders begin.
	My final point relates to information. Any change in the benefit system will lead to anxiety for people even, ironically, when the changes could have a positive effect on them. It is therefore essential that they should be provided with clear, simple and adequate information, and signposted to where they can get advice. That also applies to MPs, because we have all had people asking us for advice on the effect that the measures will have, and we should have at our fingertips all the knowledge we need to advise them as the changes come in.
	I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd), who is also a member of the Select Committee. He regrets being unable to be here today for family reasons, but he is very much here in spirit. He was keen to take part in the debate. He also chairs the all-party parliamentary group on Citizens Advice. The citizens advice bureaux clearly have a role to play in this context, and he and the group have called on the Department for Work and Pensions to work with Citizens Advice to produce an information leaflet on universal credit. It is the ideal organisation to do that. I understand that, having written to the Secretary of State, my hon. Friend has now been told that the DWP will indeed pursue the matter with Citizens Advice. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that that is the case, because that would be a positive development.
	In conclusion, this is a huge challenge, but one that would have to be confronted whichever Government were in power. This is a principle on which we can, I think, all agree, without necessarily having to agree on all the detail. I welcome it, but it is crucial to get it right between now and October. I urge the Government to keep the matter under review and then to be flexible if the pathfinders show that further changes are necessary to make it work in the way that, in the end, we all want—to support people who need it and to encourage people to get back into work when they are able to do so.

Helen Goodman: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this estimates day debate on universal credit, and to follow the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland). I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) for ensuring that we had this debate, as it is a really significant one that affects millions of our fellow citizens.
	I shall concentrate entirely on the issue of online applications, in respect of which I think the Government are heading for some really big problems. The Department for Work and Pensions has been far too sanguine about the extraordinarily ambitious target to get 80% of people online by 2017. Shelter, in looking at the issue, says that it is
	“not convinced that half of our current face-to-face service users could fully transfer to our digital services”.
	I am convinced that the DWP will not be able to transfer them in the way suggested by the Minister. Let me explain to him why I take this view.
	First, according to Booz & Company, which did a report for Go ON UK, 10.8 million people in this country do not use the internet. The D-E social group has the lowest percentage of households accessing the internet, with more than 40% of them unable to do so. According to Go ON UK, the group brought together by the industry to promote online skills, more than 16 million people lack basic online skills. They might have used the internet at some point, but they do not know how to do all the different things necessary to fill out an online form.
	It is often assumed that it is simply older people who do not use the internet. In an interesting study in the Journal of Direct, Data and Digital Marketing Practice, however, Dick Stroud has conducted a thorough and forensic exploration of who these people are. I urge the Minister and his officials to look at this opinion piece published last year. It shows that, of the digitally excluded, 1.2 million people are young and excluded—in their early 20s and earning less than £10,000 a year. Another excluded group of 1.5 million people who earn less than £20,000 range in age from about 25 to 50. Then we have a group of 2.2 million people in late middle age who are uncertain, but open to persuasion that going online would be a good idea. These are large numbers of people, and they are precisely the people who will be making applications for universal credit. The crossover between the digitally excluded and the universal credit applicant is absolutely huge.
	Furthermore, the Minister should converse with his colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Ofcom has reported today that 10% of the
	population—2.6 million households—cannot access broadband speeds above 2 megabits per second, and those are mainly in the countryside. The picture of the digitally excluded shows not people scattered evenly throughout the community, but people concentrated in particular socio-economic groups and geographical areas.

Eilidh Whiteford: The hon. Lady is making a very astute point. Some of my constituents do not have access to the internet, and those who do so often end up paying significantly more for it because of their geographical position. However, it is low-income families, wherever they live, who find it hardest to justify an internet connection in their homes, and at a time when libraries are being closed in areas of all kinds, it is increasingly difficult for those with low incomes to go online.

Helen Goodman: The hon. Lady echoes precisely my own thoughts. I urge the Minister to make a plan, and to look at the geography. He might then begin to be in a position to make a more accurate assessment of the problems that the Department will face, and to develop a more effective strategy for dealing with them than the Government seem to have at present.
	Of course there are questions to be asked about whether the Government’s IT system will be up to scratch—we all remember the problems that arose with child support and tax credits—but the question in this instance relates to the capabilities of the population, and that is the other issue that the Government are completely ignoring. The last Labour Government spent more than £400 million on digital inclusion. Between 1999 and 2003, £396 million from the capital modernisation fund and the New Opportunities Fund was spent on enabling people to go online, and in our latter years in government we invested £30 million over three years in UK online centres, which enabled a further 1 million people to do so.
	If 5 million or 10 million more people need to be enabled to go online, the Government ought to consider investing serious resources in a digital inclusion programme, but the DWP is spending £1.5 million, as are the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the NHS. There are 5 million or 10 million people whom we need to help, and we have a budget of £4 million—just for 2013-14; it does not cover later years. Given the rate at which this seems to work, that will help about 125,000 people. The level of resources and the extent of the focus on the problem are not remotely commensurate with the scale of it.
	I am glad that today is an estimates day, because I want to ask the Minister about the motion on the Order Paper. How much of the £507 million “for current purposes” will be spent on extra support in jobcentres to help people who are not skilled, and how much of the £97.5 million “for capital purposes” will be spent on the computers that will be in the jobcentres to help people who do not have computers at home? I have tabled a number of written questions to DWP Ministers, but I have not had any clear answers. The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr Hoban), merely said that his
	“survey of working age benefit and tax credit recipients found that 78% already use the internet.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2012; Vol. 554, c. 491W.]
	There is clearly a mismatch between what the Minister is being told by his officials and what people in the
	technology sector are saying. I have also written to the Minister’s noble Friend Lord Freud asking about the Government’s strategy, but I have still not received a reply.
	If we are to help those who are digitally excluded, we need to think about why they are excluded. Is it because, like 2.5 million households in the countryside, they cannot get broadband, or is to because they are “self-excluding”? According to the surveys that have been conducted, about 50% of people say that they are not interested. Perhaps Ministers think that their “digital by default” programme will enable them to make people interested and to motivate them. I can hardly think of a worse learning environment than someone facing the stressful situation of their family’s income depending on whether they succeed or fail in the test. I can hardly conceive of a worse way of motivating people. People learn best when they are relaxed and are enjoying themselves in a friendly, warm environment. That is not what Ministers are doing. They are going to put extremely vulnerable people under this pressure.
	Another issue is cost. Some 25% of people who do not use the internet say that is because of the cost. Half of them say it is because of the cost of access. As the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) said, an internet connection costs between £3 and £5 a week. People on jobseeker’s allowance and employment and support allowance will be receiving a benefit of £71.70, and after the bedroom tax they will be left with £23 a week; we know that because it is what our constituents tell us. The Minister is looking puzzled. That is what they will be left with once the cost of all their utilities has been stripped out. Based on what my constituents tell me utilities cost them, I have taken away £20 for heating, £10 for electricity, £6 for water rates and £4 for bus fare. That leaves them with £23. I have not included any money for a mobile phone or telephone connection or for a television licence. They also have to pay for things like washing-up liquid, loo paper and perhaps a pair of shoes once a year—a pair of trainers from Sport Direct.
	These people will be forced to live on tiny amounts of money once the bedroom tax is introduced. If someone’s food budget is £18 a week, which is what my constituents are facing, I submit they will not want to spend £5 a week on an internet connection, as that would not be compatible with their way of life. There is also the cost of equipment. The cheapest equipment people can get costs £150. Ministers are therefore setting up a lot of people to fail. This is not a reasonable way to treat them.
	I urge the Minister to look again at this. Exactly where across the country does he think the problem is going to arise? Will he publish a strategy? What kit is he putting into jobcentres? How much time is he expecting his staff to be offering people to support them? As Members have made clear, filling in one of these forms will take at least half an hour. In my constituency about 3,000 people will be eligible for universal credit. Although it is being phased in so that things will not happen all at once, if we say half of them can manage on the new system but the other half cannot, we will end up in a couple of years with 1,500 people needing help. If the Minister has put three computers into the local jobcentre and they are all operating for 50 hours a week, which would be an amazing feat, it would take 10 weeks for all
	those people to get their online applications made. The resources Ministers seem to be putting into this are not commensurate with the number of people who are going to need help.
	I urge the Minister to look again at this. The Government are heading for a very significant train crash and, unfortunately, those on board the train will be the most vulnerable people in the community.

Richard Drax: I am grateful to have an opportunity to speak in this debate. From what I have heard, there appears to be a general consensus, with which I agree, that there is room for the universal credit system. Its aims are laudable; our welfare bill is too big and we have to tackle this problem. I think all Members across the House will agree that this bill cannot continue to grow. It is simply unsustainable. My view, which I am sure many share, is that for too long the poor and vulnerable have been trapped in a welfare mire. How often have we heard our constituents say, “There is no point working a bit longer because if I do that I will lose my benefits”? So clearly we have to examine the system and make it fairer, encouraging those in this trap to put in the extra hours as that will be beneficial for them.
	I support the universal credit in principle; it will reward effort and will be responsive to changes in circumstances—if it works. Many hon. Members from both sides of the House have highlighted the word “if”, and I hope that my adding to the ifs will not be to the Minister’s chagrin. I have listened at great length to Mr Kevin Hodder, the chief executive of the East Boro Housing Trust; we debated this for a couple of hours. He has been in this business for many years and has shared with me, for some time now, his extensive knowledge and understanding of the benefits system. He has done so for my benefit, so that I can understand my constituents’ concerns. One or two of them—I suspect there will be many more—have come to me with their worries about the introduction of this new system.
	The first risk, which has already been highlighted, is the reliance on one computer system. There are 8 million or 8.5 million claimants—we have heard the latter figure cited—so if the system goes wrong, the risks are obvious. There is no room for error or delay because we are talking about the most vulnerable in our society, and if the money does not arrive on the day they expect it, they will face serious problems. As far as I know, no Government national computer system has worked; I remind Members of the armed forces payments system, the NHS single patient record system, the tax credit errors and the collapse of the Child Support Agency—all of us get many constituents complaining about that. The problems were, in the main, the result of computer glitches. The risk of relying on one gigantic system is that failure would be catastrophic. Mr Hodder’s wise suggestion is that universal credit software could be circulated to the local authority housing benefit departments so that consistent rules are applied.

Stephen Timms: I am listening with great interest to the important argument the hon. Gentleman is making. Does he agree that the situation is rather worse than he
	says, because this involves not one great big computer system but two? The parallel real-time information, pay-as-you-earn system in Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is also involved, and the two systems have to interlock perfectly for universal credit to work.

Richard Drax: I agree with the shadow Minister. When I was a soldier, the great cry was, “Hope for the best and prepare for the worst.” I am a little concerned that, on this policy, the worst has perhaps not been prepared for. Will the Minister, when he sums up, reassure us that there is a system in place that will cope?
	In dealing with the inevitable snags, community care grants and crisis loans could be administered by the local departments if this computer system were rolled out to them. The local housing benefit departments in my constituency are already running down their offices, yet their local knowledge could be invaluable in administering universal credit. In the world of IT and computers, how often have our constituents rung a telephone number and got a disembodied voice saying, “If you want flowers, press 1. If you want somebody else, press 2. If you want to go to heaven, press 3. And if you don’t want to bother us at all, press 4.”? At that stage the person wishes they had slammed the phone down and they give up the will to live. Although I welcome IT—I am not a luddite in that sense—I am a great believer in the human touch. Nothing beats eye-to-eye contact with constituents, including, as in this case, the many who need help. If people lose that contact with human beings—leaving aside the distress that will be caused if the computer system goes down—there will be an awful lot of concern, particularly among the elderly, many of whom do not understand the system in any case.

Mark Hoban: May I point out to my hon. Friend and to one or two other Members that universal credit is a working age benefit and will not affect the elderly?

Richard Drax: I take my hon. Friend’s point, but many people who are not of pension age are, like me, middle aged—shall we put it that way?
	As we know, universal credit is also intended to go online. As we have heard from many Members on both sides of the House, that will be unfeasible for many and could result in many incomplete applications. Again, local offices equipped with universal credit software might be a great help at least until the system is up, running and proven.
	Another of Mr Hodder’s concerns is about the receipt of a single lump sum payment once a month. Although most of the population—75%, I believe—receive their salary once a month, and although we want to treat everyone in this country in an adult fashion, it is pragmatic to realise that many of the people who will receive quite a lot of money in one blow are not necessarily in a position to handle it and have not been accustomed to it. Welfare recipients are currently paid out of many pots and money comes in at different times of the month, possibly to different accounts and different partners. For example, child benefit is often paid to the mother.
	Management of a single lump sum payment is likely to prove challenging for many, at least at first. Mr Hodder suggests, and I concur, that payments should be split
	into two a month to lessen the stress of managing day to day. He also points out that that would make recipients less of a target for payday loan sharks, as the monthly benefit salary would not be so large. I believe that there will be a rise in the number of those sharks, who will prey on those who get their money one month, spend it and then want more money to pay off their bills. The problem will therefore be increased. The money will also often go to one member of the family. If the husband is abusive, for example, there will be a problem if the wife does not have access to the money and it all comes in one lump.
	Mr Hodder’s main concern is the proposal to include housing benefit, which was once paid to landlords, in that monthly lump sum. Mr Hodder’s view, with which I agree, is that there is a “huge risk” of non-payment to landlords—I think that that is a pragmatic and realistic fear—because of wilful non-payment or the inability of the tenant to manage funds over a month. He says that the impact on his association and others will be a rise in arrears and collection costs. They will need more staff, the cash flow will be reduced and there will be less investment in social housing. Private landlords are already saying that they will not take on tenants who get their money first, for obvious reasons, so that could also shut the door on the private rented sector. Further down the line, arrears could lead to more evictions, more clogged-up courts and more families being thrown on the mercy of local authorities, which are charged with accommodating them in emergencies.
	In my view, those are all unintended consequences, but the human cost means that they matter even more. This ambitious shake-up is bound to cause some problems and I think we all accept that there will be some. Mr Hodder, myself and many people to whom I have spoken believe that they could be mitigated by careful forward thinking.
	The intention of universal credit is to make the benefits system more streamlined and efficient. I think that we would all agree with the principle that incorporating some of Mr Hodder’s suggestions would give it the best possible start. I hope to hear from the Minister that some of those concerns, expressed by Members on both sides of the House, will receive some answers. I also hope that the Government will consider very carefully all that has been suggested.

Sheila Gilmore: When the Welfare Reform Bill was in Committee, the Minister’s predecessor was fond of the bookcase analogy. We were constantly told that what we were dealing with at that time was an empty bookcase, which would shortly be filled. Ministers and some Government Members who have intervened in the debate today, rather than those who have spoken at length, tend to feel that because most commentators, interest groups and parties think a unified system that will take people from unemployment to employment is in itself a good thing, that somehow means we should not be critical of the policy or its contents.
	We have reached a point where some of the books have appeared on the bookcase, but there are still large gaps, some of which may not be filled until the roll-out takes place. We should realise, and the Minister should appreciate that, as I understand it—he may correct
	us—the initial pathfinder will deal only with very simple cases and people who do not have any complicated family situations, so it will test only some elements of the system. After that, more books will doubtless appear. However, one can have the same bookcase as someone else yet disagree radically about what books to put in it. We need to have that debate.
	We must be careful not to oversell the reform. Although we talk about universal credit as though it will be simple, in reality universal credit will have lots of arms and legs. It is an umbrella, so to speak, with lots of arms and legs, because there will be different categories of people who fall under this umbrella, who will have to meet different eligibility criteria, who will receive very different payments and elements of payments, and who will be subject to very different conditions in order to get their benefits.
	There will be a series of different types of universal credit. I would not be at all surprised if, in a couple of years, for convenience, particularly those who work in the field will refer to employment support allowance universal credit applicants or unemployed universal credit applicants. Otherwise it will be difficult to explain the situation. Universal credit will not be and perhaps cannot be simple. We on the Opposition Benches have said repeatedly that simplification is not the be-all and end-all when one is dealing with people who have complicated lives.
	We have to put the financial capacity to deal with monthly payments in place. The Minister may remember that during his previous incarnation in the Treasury we had a debate about basic bank accounts. One of the issues I raised with him in his previous role was the need to extend basic bank accounts and to make it compulsory for banks to provide basic bank accounts. He resisted that move at the time. He may come to regret that in his new role in the DWP because it might have been better if there were a better raft of basic bank accounts that people could access. The number of banks offering basic bank accounts has not grown in the past nearly three years; it has diminished. Where will people be able to have the moneys paid to? Will they be able to get such bank accounts? There are people who cannot access basic bank accounts, either because there is no bank in their vicinity that offers them, or because they are not allowed to have such an account for one reason or another.

Anne Begg: There are indeed difficulties getting a basic bank account, but does my hon. Friend accept that there are also people who have had a bad experience with banks, particularly with direct debits, and found themselves overdrawn and incurring lots of charges, and who therefore do not want to use a bank account to manage the money they get through universal credit?

Sheila Gilmore: My hon. Friend raises another important aspect. People have run up large bank charges, often inadvertently, on a very limited income. They might decide not to use the bank account any longer because that is easier, or the account may even be suspended.
	Many warm words have been spoken about credit unions, but if we are honest about it, in most parts of the UK—the situation might be slightly different in Northern Ireland—credit unions are pretty small and cover only a relatively small part of the population. If
	we seriously wanted to increase their use, we would have to fund that properly and give them some ability to expand to the extent required. I would be more than happy to direct constituents in that sort of difficulty to a credit union, but I know that the credit union serving the local area currently has very limited capacity to expand. We have to think about that extremely seriously.
	Another question considered today was that of the direct payment of rent. There are six demonstration projects, and indeed a report was published some time ago, but it was what the researchers called a baseline project report. In other words, it effectively looked only at people’s attitudes and capacities before the project got going; it proves nothing about whether it is working. Further data published by DWP in December 2012 showed that in four months 8% of rent had not been collected. At that stage, 316 tenants had already been switched back to direct payment to the landlord, and the range of collections was actually greater than the 92% would suggest. In one project in an Edinburgh housing association, 63 of the 1,832 tenants were switched back to direct payments in the first four months, which I think is a substantial portion in a relatively short period.
	It also appears—this will have to come out in the research very clearly—that some of the pilots have excluded some of the people most likely to fail. The pilot in Oxford apparently excluded those considered to be vulnerable, and the one in Wakefield excluded those who did not already have a bank account, so some of the difficult cases have not been included. That is fair enough in a pilot, but those cases must be taken into account before it can be claimed that all will be fine when this is rolled out more fully.
	Members have spoken at length about the “digital by default” approach. I am not a luddite. I think that moving towards online claiming, wherever possible, is a good idea. In fact, when I was the convenor of housing on City of Edinburgh council we started a choice-based lettings system. It was possible to apply through a newspaper, people could fill in a form in the more traditional way, or they could apply online. Some people, including tenants’ groups, told us that we could not do it online because people would not be able to access it. We replied that we were giving people the choice. The online take-up was actually higher than many people had feared. Some of them will be getting help to do that, and that is the distinction we have to see.
	There is a problem with the top-line figure, which is constantly quoted, of 78% for the proportion of claimants who already use the internet. It is drawn from research done for DWP. It revealed that 78% have used the internet, but only 48% said they used it everyday, and that includes people in work, on tax credits and right across the whole spectrum. When we break the figures down, we see, for example, that 60% of people who are in receipt of incapacity benefit said that they had used the internet, but only 31% used it every day. There are some important distinctions within these groups.
	If the new system frees up more adviser time, that can only be a good thing, but we need to know that that is really going to happen and where it is going to happen. The current situation appears to be quite stressed already. I have been told, and claimants’ experiences tend to
	back this up, that in Jobcentre Plus in my city people barely get four minutes with an employment adviser. Time is very stretched as it is.

Helen Goodman: Does my hon. Friend agree that another problem is that the voluntary sector advice agencies are also suffering from a shrinkage of resources? For example, the citizens advice bureau in Spennymoor in my constituency has only a third of the level of resources that it had two years ago.

Sheila Gilmore: There is undoubtedly a reduction in resources. Many of the advice agencies that I have contact with are having to tell people that they cannot get an appointment for three weeks, or even four.

Eilidh Whiteford: Does the hon. Lady welcome the fact that in Scotland Citizens Advice has had an increase of £5.7 million in recent weeks to cope with that situation?

Sheila Gilmore: I certainly do, although I rather regret that that money was so long in the coming given that it was available to be paid out some couple of years ago—but better late than never.
	Finally, I want to discuss a particular group—single parents. Some of the problems I am going to consider do not necessarily result from universal credit as such, but they will not be cured by universal credit and may even be made worse. For many single parents, getting back into work is not easy. There is a great deal of evidence that many of them, when they do find work, find that it is low-paid and low-skilled work. There is a high level of churn because of the type of work or because of the practical difficulties that can arise. They may find that arranging child care is unexpectedly expensive or difficult—for instance, when they run into the summer holiday problem. All these things can lead to a single parent who wants to work finding a job and doing it for a period, but then having to leave and go back to the beginning again. Skilling up is particularly important.
	Over the past few years, including under the previous Government, there have been several changes to the rules for single parents, particularly about their registering for work once their children reached certain ages. Considerable flexibilities were built into the system whereby, for example, a single parent would not be required to apply for a job, go for a job interview or take a job where it would not fit with their child care responsibilities. There are several such flexibilities, none of which, bar one, are in the new regulations that have been produced for universal credit. They are in guidance, but the problem is that guidance is not legally binding and these matters are at the discretion of an individual adviser.
	There are currently 12 flexibilities, only one of which has been migrated into the new regulations in its entirety; the other 11 are not there or have been very much qualified. For example, under the regulations a single parent is still able to restrict the hours they work, but only if they can demonstrate that there are jobs with those hours available locally. If there are not, they cannot have that flexibility, so presumably they will have to look for a job that does not accord with their child care responsibilities or look for one outwith their area, which creates a whole new set of difficulties. Anyone who has had to pick up their child from nursery at a fixed time and has experienced the reception they
	get when they arrive back late because the bus has been delayed will know that working a long distance away is not easy.
	It is not at all clear why these changes are being made. They might make it more difficult for single parents to get back into work. If the flexibilities are not there, the other problem that arises is sanctions. If people do not have those flexibilities, they may be required to take on a job—or to refuse a job—that does not meet their needs. If they refuse to take the job, they can be sanctioned. The level of sanctions was increased substantially in the Welfare Reform Act 2012 and the number of people who are being sanctioned is increasing. We are all seeing those people already. I would like the Minister to explain why the decision has been taken not to put the flexibilities for single parents into the regulations.
	Gingerbread, which represents single parents, feels that getting skilled has been made more difficult of late. Again, there does not seem to be anything in universal credit that will help that situation. Previously, a single parent with a very young child who was on income support got a fee remission if they did a college course. That fee remission has been removed, so although a single parent with a child under five can still do a college course if they can fit it in around everything else that they are doing, they have to pay for it. When they hit the requirement to sign on for JSA, they will get fee remission for a course, but if a job offer comes up that they have to accept, they will either have to drop the course, which they might be part-way through, or continue the course and be sanctioned. That is not the way to upskill people. Gingerbread has proposed that a single parent who is undertaking a further education course, up to and including level 3,
	“should be treated as fulfilling work search and work availability requirements”
	until their youngest child reaches the age of seven or the course ends. That is a practical proposal.
	There is serious concern that the structure of universal credit, far from enabling single parents to work, will not be of great assistance and might even be harmful. The Gingerbread report, “Struggling to make ends meet”, with which I am sure the Minister is familiar, points out that a single parent who is earning the minimum wage cannot expect their disposable income to increase by much once they start working 10 hours or more. We are talking about very short hours. For anyone who does not understand, we are not talking about 10 hours a day, but 10 hours a week. Somebody who works only three, four, five, six or seven hours a week will be better off under universal credit, but because of the structure of it, once they are working 10 hours a week or more, they will not be much better off. For all that has been said about universal credit making people much better off and encouraging them to go into work, the structure is not quite as good as has been made out.

Kate Green: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to that problem. Does she agree that it is therefore especially unfortunate that in-work conditionality will propel that lone parent to increase her hours or, in other words, propel her into diminishing returns for her work?

Sheila Gilmore: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. The concept of in-work conditionality, which is new to the UK, needs to be fleshed out considerably
	as universal credit rolls out. It is not at all clear how it will work. It appears to mean that if somebody is working a low number hours, they will be expected to look for more hours or for a different job in which they can work more hours. It will be open to the DWP to tell people that they have not made enough effort to do that and to sanction them for it. That is supposed to make people better off; it is supposed to be good for them to go through such a process, but if it does not make them better off, it feels more like punishment than assistance.
	The report also looked at single parents who are not on the minimum wage but earn a median salary, and it was calculated that they would be worse off working full time than part time. They would not simply be no better off, they would actually be worse off as their hours increased. Again, that undermines the Government’s pledge to make work pay. Part of the reason for that concerns things such as child care costs. The cap on reimbursable child care costs has not been increased, and those costs are rising rapidly in many places. That has a marked effect on whether working longer hours and increasing earnings makes work pay.
	Single parents are just one group that will be involved in this massive upheaval that will either create something completely different, or might lead to something that does not look very different at the end of the day—I am not sure which. There will still be many different categories of people, and the problems that we know about such as eligibility, and issues such as employment and support allowance and the work capability assessment that we have frequently discussed in this House, will not go away with the introduction of universal credit but will be tucked inside it.
	I urge the Government to look at some of those issues and not simply to sit behind a general statement that universal credit will make work pay and that people will be better off. They think that if they keep asserting that and say it often enough it will happen, but it will happen only if we get the books right on the bookshelf.

Stephen Timms: We have had an interesting debate and I congratulate the Work and Pensions Committee, and its Chair, on the report. I share the Committee’s support in principle for universal credit, as well as its frustration that in responding to the report, Ministers gave so few answers to the telling questions that it raises.
	The Committee raised the timetable for implementation, and as the hon. Members for South Dorset (Richard Drax) and for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) pointed out, it was always clear that there would be a problem with the IT. We warned the Secretary of State about that simply on the basis of how long it took the same officials to implement much more straightforward changes under the previous Government. The Secretary of State was good enough to meet me in November 2010, and I wrote to him on 16 November 2010—well over two years ago—and warned of
	“a serious risk that it will not be ready for new applicants by 2013”.
	He replied on 31 January 2011:
	“I am confident that I can offer reassurance on each of the points that you raised.”
	On 18 April I wrote back to the Secretary of State:
	“I remain deeply sceptical of the feasibility of the current implementation timetable…the Department should recognise that the timescale will slip”,
	and he replied on 11 May 2011:
	“I recognise that we may not share the same overall assessment of the issues”,
	which indeed we did not.
	In the Welfare Reform Bill Committee, I said to the Minister’s predecessor that
	“the system will not be ready by October 2013”––[Official Report, Welfare Reform Public Bill Committee, 28 April 2011; c. 596.]
	but the Minister replied that I was “wrong to be pessimistic.” I warned about the problem again in another debate in Committee on 8 June 2011.
	Today it is reported that contractors have been told to down tools. The Department has denied it, as has the Minister, but I have no doubt that the reports are accurate. They come from people who have received these instructions, and I have no doubt that before long the position will become clear. The Secretary of State claimed yesterday, and the Minister has repeated today, that
	“the implementation of universal credit…is proceeding exactly in accordance with plans”.
	The hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) was right to say that it is certainly not proceeding according to plans. It is genuinely a mystery to me why Ministers deny what is clearly the case.
	The Government’s initial timetable for universal credit had all new applications for out-of-work benefits being treated as universal credit applications from October this year. We now know that hardly any new applications will be treated as universal credit applications in October this year and everybody else will be treated as applying for existing benefits. As I understand it—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—only applications submitted in one jobcentre in each region will be deemed to be universal credit applications, so that is only nine jobcentres. Even then, it will only include people with the most straightforward applications, because the IT will not be ready to handle the rest.
	I want to ask the Minister a specific question. For two years, Ministers said that all new out-of-work benefit applications would be handled as universal credit applications from October 2013, and all new in-work benefit applications from April 2014. What is his current estimate of those two crucial dates? Just how far have those milestones slipped? Does he have any dates now that he is confident enough to give the House for when those milestones will be reached?
	It is not just I who am worried. The Minister has bigger problems than that. Four times at the regular press conference this morning the Prime Minister’s spokesman was asked to express confidence that universal credit would be delivered on time and on budget. Four times he refused to give that assurance.
	It is not just the IT that is in trouble, but the policy too. Ministers have failed to make crucial decisions, as set out in the Committee’s report. The Secretary of State told the Welfare Reform Bill Committee in February 2011 that he would have proposals for entitlement to free school meals before the Bill left the Commons. He did not deliver, and two years later we are still waiting
	for those proposals. As the Select Committee politely pointed out, the Government
	“now needs to make decisions”.
	Actually, they should have made decisions a very long time ago, but we certainly need them now. As my hon. Friend the Chair of the Committee pointed out earlier, the pupil premium is also dependent on this, as well as whether universal credit will deliver. The Government’s response assures us that the Department
	“has committed to working with other Government departments and Devolved Administrations to ensure that the issue of passported benefits both in the short and long term is approached from a wide perspective and any changes are simple, fair and easy to understand.”
	It burbles on in that vein for a page or so, but the Minister must now decide. What is the policy? He cannot keep ducking the issue. It is all supposed to start in October. When will he tell us?
	It is not a minor issue. The solution adopted on free school meals will have a fundamental impact on whether universal credit has the intended effect of making it worth people’s while to be in work. If—as is widely suggested—the Minister and his colleagues introduce a crude income threshold for eligibility for free school meals and other passported benefits, they will create the most enormous disincentive for people to get jobs and increase their income—far worse than any of the cliff edges in the current system of which they have been so critical. He really cannot delay these fundamental decisions any longer. He cannot keep putting them off.
	The Committee also raises the crucial issue of supporting and funding exempt accommodation. It makes this point:
	“DWP must urgently finalise and publish the details of the revised arrangements so that providers have the certainty they need to plan ahead and maintain their service provision.”
	I raised this with the Minister in Committee when we debated the regulations on 11 February. I pointed out that Women’s Aid estimates that more than half the domestic violence refuges in the country are not covered by the exemptions in his regulations. The problem is that the regulations use an out-of-date definition. I am absolutely sure that the Minister does want such accommodation to be exempt, but it will not be achieved by his regulations. What is he going to do about that? His response to the Committee does not give an answer. The National Housing Federation makes this point:
	“It is vital that the Government ensures the regulations exempt the full range of supported housing by using a definition of supported housing that reflects the set up of refuges, hostels and specialist schemes for disabled people.”
	My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) was absolutely right to ask the question that was also raised by the Committee: what is going to happen to people who do not have a bank account? How are they going to be paid universal credit? We still do not know. In the pathfinders starting next month in four local authority areas in the north-west, people without a bank account will not be able to claim universal credit. How long will it be before the system is able to cope with people who do not have a bank account? The Committee’s report states:
	“The DWP has been unable to present us with any clear plans for how the Universal Credit service will be delivered to those people who cannot make an online claim.”
	The response from the Government does not give us that clear plan.
	Unison is right to draw attention to a host of basic issues to which we still do not know the answer. The hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) raised some of those issues, too. How will somebody apply locally for universal credit? The response to the Committee reassures us that
	“we will offer claimants the option to claim…in person”.
	What does that mean? Where will they apply? Will they go to the town hall, or to the jobcentre? What documents will they need? How does somebody get face-to-face advice if they have a problem? This is all supposed to be up and running from October and we do not know who is going to do this. We do not even know what the online application process will look like in the pathfinders that are supposed to start next month.
	One of the Government’s worst errors in the whole project—the Chair of the Select Committee has already drawn attention to it—was leaving council tax benefit out of universal credit and devolving it with a 10% cut. The Committee’s report was right to point out the problems that that will cause. It works against simplification, it undermines work incentives, and it makes it much harder for people to know whether they will be better off in work. It has, as the Committee stated,
	“the potential seriously to undermine the objectives of Universal Credit.”
	We have heard about a lot of other problems in the debate. Problems relating to digital access were highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman). The hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) was right to draw attention to the problems emerging in the direct payment demonstration projects: the National Housing Federation tells us that rent arrears in the demonstration project areas are up by 60%.
	It is, I am afraid, universal chaos: fundamental policy decisions have not been made; obvious gaps have not been plugged; where precise answers are needed we just get vague flim-flam; key milestones have gone back by a year or more; IT contractors are reported to have been told to stop work; and the Minister blithely assures us that it is all proceeding exactly in accordance with plans. It is too late for flim-flam. These crucial decisions cannot be delayed any longer. It is time now for the Minister finally to give us some answers.

Mark Hoban: I commend the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), for the way in which she opened the debate, and for the balanced way she set out the issues in its report. I thank the Committee, too, for its work. Often, people outside the House underestimate the important role that Select Committees play in scrutinising policy development, but the report is a very good example of the excellent work they do to highlight the issues and to get the balance right.
	Balance was what was missing from the speech by the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms). I think there was a 10-second acceptance at the start that universal credit was a good idea. He then spent the rest of his speech trying to conjure up reasons why it was not a good idea. [Interruption.] No, that is absolutely true. I will give some examples. He and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) have
	been touting for some months now the story that people have been walking off the project and that the project is in chaos. We saw it in today’s
	Guardian
	—an article that perhaps should be seen in the context of today’s debate—and the right hon. Member for East Ham said just now that he expected contractors to walk off site. What a load of rubbish we have heard! In a statement today, HP, one of the big contractors, said that it remained committed to supporting the DWP, to the universal credit pathfinders going live in April 2013 and to subsequent releases. It also said that it would continue to work with the DWP and our other suppliers on this major programme of welfare reform.

Stephen Timms: rose—

Mark Hoban: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman wishes to apologise for scaremongering.

Stephen Timms: I can reassure the Minister that the source of the report came from the companies concerned. But let me ask him this: the initial plan was for all applications for out-of-work benefits to be handled as universal credit applications from October this year. Is there a new date for that milestone, and if so, what is it?

Mark Hoban: Yet again, the right hon. Gentleman needs to get some perspective. We have always made clear our plan for a progressive roll-out of universal credit, for exactly the reason that hon. Members have mentioned, which is that previous Governments have launched unsuccessful big-bang IT projects. We have been clear, therefore, that we need a progressive roll-out—pilots, lessons learned, consolidation and then next-stage roll-out.
	That is the best way to ensure that universal credit is rolled out correctly and it is a significant change from how previous Governments have handled IT projects, including the disastrous tax credits system when, of course, the right hon. Gentleman was a Treasury Minister. We have made clear our plan for a gradual roll-out for new claimants from October 2013. We have always said that the progressive roll-out of new claims across the country would begin in October 2013. That is a simple restatement of what we have always intended to do. I respect the right hon. Gentleman, but I think he has overreached himself on this argument.

Stephen Timms: Will the Minister give way?

Mark Hoban: No, I only have a relatively short amount of time in which to respond to quite detailed questions from hon. Members. [Hon. Members: “Give way!”] No, I want to make some progress.

Stephen Timms: rose—

Mark Hoban: No, all the right hon. Gentleman is doing is scaremongering, which is not the right approach. Someone made the valid point that misinformation undermines claimant confidence in the system. I want to address some of the concerns that people have expressed in this debate and demonstrate how the Government are tackling the issues highlighted in the Select Committee’s report.

Stephen Timms: rose—

Mark Hoban: I am not going to give way. The more often the right hon. Gentleman seeks to intervene, the less time I have to engage with the substantive discussion.
	I will remind the House of the aims of universal credit. It is designed to avoid universally recognised problems in the current flawed system, which traps people on benefits and makes them dependent on the welfare state. It will ensure that work remains the best route out of poverty and benefit dependence for those who can work, and is intended to be radically simpler than the complex web of tax credits and benefits it replaces. We made a deliberate choice here. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) was right to highlight a previous Committee report on the complexity of the welfare system. Rather than replicating the current system, in all its complexity, we are seeking to design a system that is easier for claimants to understand and creates better incentives.
	Crucially, universal credit brings together in-work and out-of-work support into a single monthly payment for those out of work or on low earnings. At present, there are separate systems for out-of-work and in-work benefits administered by different national and local agencies. A move into work therefore entails a recalculation of entitlement, multiple communications and possible delays and gaps in payments. As a result, many people are not prepared to take the risk of moving into work.
	This is not just about those who are out of work, however; it is about those who are in work as well. One of the rigidities built into the tax credit system is the 16-hour-a-week rule, which means that people offered work have to ask themselves, “Is it worthwhile my taking on this additional work?” Many people have to go to the jobcentre to make a better-off-in-work calculation. We cannot have barriers in place preventing people from wanting to earn more, take on more hours and look after themselves and their families.
	With universal credit, we are aiming above all to achieve a fundamental change in attitudes to work, helping people to see more clearly that they are better off in work and encouraging and supporting people to move into work or to increase their hours.
	As I said earlier, too many people are trapped into working 16 hours a week by a system that means there is no point in extending their hours because they would be worse off. I have even heard of people turning down bonuses from their employers because they are concerned about the impact on their benefits. What a tragic situation we are in, when a system of benefits traps people in low incomes. What we need to do—I hope Opposition Members will reflect on this—is find a system that helps people to get back into work. That is one reason why it is important to have in-work conditionality, to help people move up the income scale and find ways to increase their earnings by getting new skills, getting promotions and increasing their hours. In focusing on how we resolve some of the exceptions in the system, Opposition Members are in danger of losing sight of the reason for doing this: to free people from a complex system of benefits that has trapped so many out of work.

Stephen Timms: I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. He was not able to give a date for the earlier milestone; he is now setting out the advantages, as he sees them, of universal credit for people who are in work. To begin with, all new in-work benefit applications
	were going to be universal credit applications from April 2014. Can he tell us when that new milestone will be reached?

Mark Hoban: We have always said that there would be a progressive roll-out of the system. I am not going to give a running commentary on the timetable at this moment. We have been very clear—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”] No, we have been very clear that we would have early implementation in April 2013, and we are going to see that in the Greater Manchester and Cheshire area. That will enable us to test the end-to-end process in advance of the progressive national roll-out of universal credit from October. Once a pathfinder has happened, we will continue to adjust the exact timing and sequence of the migration process in the light of experience, including the operation of the pathfinder service in the Greater Manchester area. That will be done exactly to avoid the problems that previous Governments have faced with big-bang system changes falling over.
	I would also point out to hon. Members who continue to question the Department’s ability to deliver significant system changes that we have launched the latest generation of the child maintenance system on time and on budget. We have also successfully launched the universal jobmatch service, which is helping more than 1 million jobseekers find work and get into employment more quickly. That we have been able to do those things demonstrates the Department’s capacity and capability to deliver programmes on time.

Kate Green: Even if things work entirely to plan and universal credit proves to be easily accessible and simple to use for the majority of claimants, we know that some of the most vulnerable claimants will be unable to make claims unassisted. They will go to an independent advice agency such as Welfare Rights or Citizens Advice for help. Can the Minister assure me that those agencies will be able to contact the Department easily with queries? They already struggle in the present system to find a dedicated helpline that can help them as advisers. Can the Minister confirm that that will be put in place and will work effectively for adviser agencies under universal credit?

Mark Hoban: I want to return to the question of support and advice agencies, because the need to support people on to universal credit is an important issue that has been raised. Before I do that, let me talk about a couple of other issues that people have raised in this debate.
	A number of hon. Members have raised the issue of online access. We should recognise that digital exclusion is a major issue affecting communities and individuals. It acts as a barrier to employment, as well to claiming universal credit. We need to lift that barrier and make it easier for people not just to claim universal credit, but to get the online and digital skills they need to get into work. Universal credit gives us an opportunity to move people online.

Eilidh Whiteford: Will the Minister give way?

Mark Hoban: I have only just started making this point, so let me make a bit more progress.
	Research suggests that 92% of advertised vacancies require applicants to have basic IT skills. Therefore, those without such skills are considerably limited in
	their employment prospects. By using the digital channel as the default, we will be able to identify individuals who are struggling to manage or who lack the basic skills to use online systems. In doing so, we will be able to target support so that they can learn these essential skills, thus improving their prospects of finding work. Work done by the Cabinet Office on internet usage demonstrates that 78% of existing benefits and tax credits recipients already use the internet. Our latest figures show that more than 51% of jobseeker’s allowance claims received by the Department are now made online. I think that that demonstrates that people will be able to do it. We need to encourage more people to go online and find ways to give that support. For those who cannot use the internet, telephony and face-to-face access will be available. Rather than accepting that people cannot use the internet, we should try to help them get on to it and use telephony and face-to-face access as a fall-back mechanism.
	The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) said that 10% of people do not have access to superfast broadband with a speed of more than 2 megabits per second. She will be pleased to know that people will not require broadband at that speed in order to access universal credit and make claims.

Anne Begg: The Minister might not know the answer, but will there be a real person at the end of the telephone, or will people have to enter all their details by pushing buttons and never get to speak to anyone?

Mark Hoban: I assure the hon. Lady that a lot of real people answer telephones at the Department. I am sure that she has visited some of our contact centres and seen them in the flesh. It is important that that human support is available either locally or over the telephone.

Anne Begg: In my experience of the disability living allowance, it takes some time to speak to a real person because the caller has to push lots of buttons, and that in itself acts as a barrier.

Mark Hoban: Indeed, but we also need to triage people so that they can get to the person with the right expertise and ensure that we focus our resources on the more difficult and challenging enquiries, which requires some triage through the telephone system.

Helen Goodman: Will the Minister give way?

Mark Hoban: I have about 15 minutes left and am keen to deal with some of the other points that have been raised.
	On advice and support, the advice sector is key to ensuring that we deliver universal credit effectively. We work very closely with the stakeholder organisations to ensure that their expertise is utilised. This is a moving picture and several things have happened since the Government published their response to the Committee’s report. On 11 February, we published the local support services framework, which addresses what support UC claimants need, including those with complex needs, and how we will work with the third sector and local authorities to provide that support in the most effective way.
	At the heart of the framework is a partnership approach, which emphasises the need for close working between DWP, local authority managers and service providers such as social landlords and charities to agree on the services that will be needed at a local level. By encouraging close partnership-working between agencies, we will provide a more joined-up, holistic service for claimants with complex needs and a single claimant journey towards greater independence and, wherever appropriate, work readiness for claimants.
	The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) asked about access. We have not decided yet whether there should be specialist advice line for welfare rights advisers, but we will try to bring together all benefits guidance in one place—I think it is a legitimate criticism to say that it has been fragmented in the past—and provide a much more simplified resource for relevant information. I hope that will make life easier for advisers in the third sector. I take on board the hon. Lady’s helpful point.
	A number of hon. Members raised the issue of monthly payments, including the Chair of the Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills). Universal credit is designed to reflect a world where 75% of employees are paid monthly. Paying universal credit monthly will not only reflect patterns that people who fall out of work are used to, but help smooth the transition into work and encourage claimants to take personal responsibility for their finances. For the first time, we will be able to identify those claimants who struggle to mange on a monthly salary, and will provide support to help them develop the necessary money management skills to remove barriers that prevent some of them from moving into work.
	We recognise that a move to a single monthly household payment is a significant change to the way in which many benefits are currently paid and that some claimants will require support to help them manage that change. Money advice will be offered to all claimants when they make a claim, and given to those who have a clear need for it. There will be different levels and types of money advice, based on need. Some claimants will be signposted toward an online service, some might be offered a single session over the phone, and others might be offered an intensive face-to-face session with follow-up calls. We also recognise that some clients might need money advice for only a short period, while others will need it for longer. We are trying to create a service that can be tailored to the needs of individuals, rather than a one-size-fits-all service.
	On 11 February, we published guidance giving details of the factors that advisers should consider when discussing alternative payments with claimants. Those factors include drug and alcohol dependency. For most claimants, alternative payment arrangements will be time limited, and offered alongside further budgeting support and help to move towards managing a standard monthly payment. I mentioned that drug and alcohol issues were one of the factors that should be borne in mind. Others include learning difficulties, mental health conditions, those in temporary or supported accommodation, perhaps including people who are homeless, those who have severe debt problems and those who are the victims of domestic violence. So a range of factors will be taken into account to determine whether a monthly payment should be made, or whether an alternative, more frequent, payment would be in the claimant’s interest.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) made the point that this is all about boosting aspiration. It is about enabling people to manage their finances and to get into work, and we need to ensure that we have a system that meets mainstream needs but also supports the needs of more complex cases, rather than a scheme that is designed entirely around the needs of the exceptions. It is important to get the balance right.

Stephen Timms: Will the Minister give way?

Mark Hoban: I just want to say something about basic bank accounts. We have set aside £145 million to stimulate new financial products for universal credit claimants, and we are working closely with financial providers across the private, social and third sectors. We are continuing to consult those providers and other stakeholders about the arrangements for those products, and we will announce our detailed approach and requirements in due course.
	The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) referred to the fact that we had discussed basic bank accounts when I was in my previous role. There is a real challenge involved. One of the final pieces of research produced by the financial inclusion taskforce identified that many of the people who did not have a bank account were those who claimed benefit, and that many people who had had bank accounts had ceased to use them. It is important to ensure that we put the right financial products in place, but we must also give people the support they need to manage their money so that they can remain banked, rather than dropping out and becoming unbanked.

Stephen Timms: The Minister mentioned people in supported accommodation. Does he have a response to the concern that I raised about women’s refuges and other supported accommodation, given that the definition in the regulations does not seem to be quite right? Can he give me any reassurance about continued support for people living in such accommodation?

Mark Hoban: The definition in the regulations will be the one that is in the existing regulations, and it has worked well so far. We are talking to women’s refuges and others to try to understand what has changed, and why the existing definition no longer gives the desired results. That is a matter that we want to continue to discuss.
	We need to be careful when we talk about the direct payment of rent, because the vast majority of people have no problem paying their rent or their mortgage. My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) has raised this matter. In one of the pilots, 92% of people paid their rent on time. Among the other 8%, some were underpayments and some were mis-payments, but not all were wilful non-payments. We have an obligation to try to move that 8% so that they can pay their rent on time and meet their obligations. Also, this change will encourage social landlords to think about the broader needs of their tenants—how they can find the necessary skills to get work, and get the necessary financial and budgeting support to manage their money more effectively—rather than just thinking about collecting the rent.
	We need to ensure that the new system does not remove personal responsibility from everyone, while recognising that we will need to do something for those who are facing the greatest problems. We are working on that, and the pathfinders will help us to gain that knowledge. We want to make sure that the risks are managed and that landlords can request that the housing element is paid to them when the rent arrears trigger has been reached. These arrangements will be in place for some high-risk claimants from the outset until there is improved financial capability. In effect, we will start the shift to direct payments for claimants with the easier cases and then progress to the more difficult cases. The approach that runs through the roll-out of universal credit is to pilot things and understand the lessons to be learned to ensure we avoid mistakes in the future.
	I am sure that I have already spoken for far longer than I should have done, but I think our debate has been important. I end by echoing the words of my hon. Friends who have contributed. We are talking about a change in culture. It is not just a benefit replacement exercise; it is about helping people back into work—making sure that they know that it is better to work than not to work, that it is better to work longer to earn more than to work fewer hours and earn less. We need to tackle some of the barriers to getting people into work, not just in respect of the complexities of the benefit system, but by enabling people to manage their money and to take responsibility for their finances and for their future.
	Universal credit is a huge step forward in encouraging self-reliance, but we recognise that a number of people—not the vast majority of people—will need more support. The measures we have set out today and the way in which we have developed them, even from when we submitted our response to the Select Committee’s report, demonstrates this Government’s serious commitment to get universal credit right. It is by getting it right that we will have the best chance of getting people out of poverty.

Nigel Evans: Dame Anne Begg seeks the leave of the House to make a short response to the debate. With the leave of the House, I call her to speak.

Anne Begg: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I would like to thank everyone who has contributed to today’s debate, which has been extremely worth while in teasing out what the Government have done and the questions they needed to address. Some fairly meaty questions are still to be answered—not least the one about passported benefits, which I noticed the Minister did not answer, probably because it remains a thorny issue.
	I suspect that the Select Committee will return to this subject in the coming months or years—depending on which side of the House is believed on the timetable for the roll-out. Issues will arise once things are up and running and once real live people are claiming the benefit. Because so much about the universal credit will depend on behavioural changes, it is impossible to say at this stage which side of the argument is correct as to how people will behave when people are faced with the reality of claiming the new benefit. On behalf of the Select Committee, let me say that this debate has provided
	a great opportunity for us to explore what we thought would be the most important challenges for the Government in the future.
	Question deferred until Seven o’clock (Standing Order No. 54)

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
	 — 
	Medical Implants (EU and UK)

[Relevant Documents: Fifth Report from the Science and Technology Committee, on Regulation of medical implants in the EU and UK, HC 163, and the Government response, Cm 8496]
	Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That, for the year ending with 31 March 2013, for expenditure by the Department of Health—
	(1) further resources, not exceeding £1,244,626,000, be authorised for use for current purposes as set out in HC 894,
	(2) the resources authorised for use for capital purposes be reduced by £1,000 as so
	set out, and
	(3) the sums authorised for issue out of the Consolidated Fund be reduced by £472,479,000 as so set out.—(Greg Hands.)

Andrew Miller: It is a pleasure to speak to the Select Committee’s report today. I start by paying tribute to my fellow members of the Select Committee on Science and Technology who work extremely hard on very technical matters such as this one. I particularly want to pass on our thanks to staff of the House, such as Committee Clerks and specialists, who have done such a wonderful job supporting the Committee in this Parliament.
	I would like to focus on the health issues considered in our report on the regulation of medical implants in the EU and UK, which was published in October last year. It was prompted partly by the scandal over PIP breast implants and the less publicised but equally concerning problem with metal-on-metal hip implants. In addition, the European Commission has drafted proposals to revise the medical devices directive, and we hope not just to influence but to assist the Government in developing a strong negotiating position on that directive.
	Under the directive, a medical device is used in health care for diagnosing, preventing, monitoring or treating illness or disability. The definition does not include medicines, which have their own regulatory structure. Nevertheless, medical device regulations cover a wide range of products, from pacemakers to spectacles. Devices are classified according to the risk that they pose to patients. A device such as a stethoscope or a dental filling is a class I or a class II, while medical implants are always class IIb or class III. The classification determines how much assessment is required.
	Medical implants must be verified by a notified body before they can be placed on the market. Notified bodies are overseen by a competent authority in each member state. I use the word “competent” loosely, because there are some questions about that. In the United Kingdom, the competent authority is the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, which oversees six notified bodies. They are private organisations which assess high-risk devices and ensure that an implant complies with the essential requirements specified by the directives—the main one, of course, being the medical devices directive.
	When an implant has been given the stamp of approval, the manufacturer places the CE mark on the device, and is free to put it on the market in all European countries
	without further controls. I should emphasise that point, because it shows how crucial it is to get the pre-market approval process right. Once the implant has been approved by one notified body in one EU country, it can go on the market anywhere in the EU. Manufacturers can approach a notified body in any member state to get approval; what is more, if a manufacturer has previously approached a regulator who has said “That device is not up to scratch”, and then approaches another and gets approval, the first part of the information is, ridiculously, regarded as commercial in confidence. That must clearly be changed.
	There are more than 70 such notified bodies in Europe. I am pleased to say that the Committee heard no evidence criticising those in the United Kingdom, but we did hear concern expressed about the possibility that those in other countries might not apply the same high standards. Such differences are open to exploitation, as a manufacturer can choose to approach a notified body that is more likely to provide approval, a practice that is sometimes described as forum shopping. There is a real lack of transparency, and we simply do not know how widespread the problem is.
	A useful insight was provided on 24 October last year by The Daily Telegraph and the British Medical Journal. Notified bodies were approached to approve a metal-on-metal hip implant that was known to be faulty. Shockingly, bodies in Slovakia and the Czech Republic were prepared to approve it. Many Members will remember the names of the authors of the article in The Daily Telegraph, because they have previously been involved in stings affecting Members of Parliament, but on this occasion they did an extraordinarily important job. I have gone on record as giving credit to those journalists for uncovering what I think was a trail of deception. I hope that, in his negotiating stance, the Minister will ensure that we have a mechanism that avoids that kind of risk in the future, and I intend shortly to illustrate to him a way in which procurement can be developed to avoid it.
	I am pleased that the Commission has recognised the need to improve the scrutiny of notified bodies. For example, it has been proposed that manufacturers should be unable to apply to more than one notified body at a time. Our report made a number of recommendations about notified bodies, chiefly calling for a record of all approaches by manufacturers and supporting the Commission’s proposals to use teams of experts from member states to oversee the designation of notified bodies.
	These notified bodies also audit manufacturers, and that includes an assessment of their facilities. In the PIP implants story, it was the inspection of the manufacturer’s facility that led to the discovery that an unapproved implant filler was being used. Although the PIP scandal was a case of deliberate fraud, not of the failure of the regulatory system, it demonstrated the importance of inspections and audits. We were therefore supportive of the Commission’s proposals to enforce unannounced audits of manufacturers and we further recommended that audits should take place at least annually.
	Another key flaw in the current system is the overuse of equivalence data in approving implants. We now come to the key difference between medicines and medical devices. Every new human medicine has to go through rigorous clinical trials to test for efficacy and safety, but
	medical devices do not. The clinical data that the manufacturer must provide can come from clinical investigations of that particular device or from equivalence data, which are clinical data on another device that is similar. That may sound reasonable, and in most cases it probably is reasonable, but the problem is that even a small change to the design or material of a device can radically change how it behaves in the body. Also, if we keep approving devices on the basis of equivalence but with a small change each time, we will end up approving devices that are very different from those originally envisaged.
	It is not practical to demand a clinical investigation of each and every device, as there are hundreds of thousands of devices in the EU, and doing so would not necessarily pick up the problems of wear and tear that happen over a long period of time or take account of how patients interact with their implants, but we were unimpressed by the extent to which reliance on equivalence data appeared to be acceptable for high-risk devices such as implants. We concluded that revisions of the directive should draw a clear distinction between where equivalence data are and are not acceptable.
	Before moving to the second half of the regulatory system, which is the post-market surveillance, I want to make a point about the transparency of clinical data. Very little information about a device is public. Clinical data are generally not published, which makes clinical decision-making and informing patients difficult. I think we would all agree that patients have a right to know what is being put inside them and the associated risks. The Commission proposed to make manufacturers of high-risk devices publish summaries of safety and performance with key pieces of clinical data. We did not think that went far enough and called for all clinical data to be made available for both new implants and those already on the market. Similar transparency issues are being explored in our current inquiry on clinical trials, which starts very soon.
	I said I would offer the Minister a practical solution to address the challenges of what is a very complex regulatory structure. We need to ensure that both doctors and patients have the fullest possible information about any product that is being used and inserted in a person as a medical device. It seems to me that the answer lies very much with the Minister. I had this discussion when some of his support team came to see me recently with Sir Bruce Keogh, who is doing the work on some of the medical implant devices, particularly those relating to cosmetic use. It strikes me that there is an obvious way forward, and it is a way in which other countries operate European procurement rules. Whoever sets out the procurement process—in whichever trust or at whichever level in the NHS—should simply make a requirement that anyone bidding for the contract must provide the fullest and most transparent data about the trials that have been conducted, the design of the product and the regulatory processes it has gone through, including the ones where there has been a failure. That is a perfectly reasonable regulatory requirement for the Minister to impose on anyone seeking to sell products that are to be used in the NHS.

Stephen Mosley: It is worth saying that the Committee also saw the importance of ensuring that negative data are released and made available. We often find that similar products are available and if
	something is failing in one product, there will often be a similar problem in another product. If we do not produce those negative data to show where problems are with some products, we may miss problems with other medical implants.

Andrew Miller: The hon. Gentleman, who works hard on the Select Committee, is absolutely right in what he says. I stress to the Minister that not only was this report unanimously endorsed by the Committee members, but we were angry at the lack of available information. That was no fault of the Minister or his predecessors; it resulted from a system that had grown, as the use of implants had grown, into a mechanism that was not fit for purpose. The Minister is rightly participating in the process of revising the directive, but some urgent requirements mean that he has to take a proactive approach and encourage—indeed, instruct, if he has that power—procurement offices of the NHS to set a new standard. They should simply require anyone tendering for a product in this category to provide, as part of the tendering process, totally transparent information about the process and the regulatory regime it has gone through.

Sarah Newton: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will elaborate on some of the positive examples that the Committee found, which included the groups of orthopaedic surgeons who voluntarily shared information on different hip replacement devices and could contextualise the outcomes. The implant itself is not always responsible for the outcome—that could result from other factors to do with the medical condition of the patient or all sorts of other circumstances—but these people were able to contextualise that information in large enough sample sizes to help other surgeons to come to the right decisions about the right implants for their patients.

Andrew Miller: The hon. Lady, another hard-working member of the Committee, is absolutely right and that could take us on to a much more complex debate about how we move from where we are in today’s medicine to future developments in stratified medicine and so on. The way in which our medical profession works in such a strong collegiate manner helps to maintain standards at the highest level. Lessons can be learned in that regard that underline the importance of the NHS as the lead body in this area.
	Post-market surveillance is a crucial element of the regulatory system and is technically the responsibility of the manufacturers. However, the notified bodies also have some oversight through auditing. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency investigates adverse incidents once they have been reported. Again, we called for greater transparency by recommending that manufacturers publish the results of post-market surveillance studies. We proposed that a system such as the MHRA’s black triangle system, which flags up new medicines approved on limited clinical data, should be adopted for devices approved on equivalence alone. We found some evidence that clinicians under-report adverse incidents, so we wanted the Government to consider making reporting mandatory.
	One place to keep post-market data is a registry. The National Joint Registry for England and Wales—meaning joints in the body, not joint between England and
	Wales—is a success story. It collects data on all joint replacements in the NHS and the private sector and is the biggest such register in the world. The NJR provided data on the DePuy metal-on-metal hip implant, which was then recalled worldwide in 2010.
	Registries do not always succeed. Between 1996 and 2003, we had the national breast implant registry, but that failed, partly because of the low willingness of patients to give follow-up information. Nevertheless, our colleagues on the Health Committee called for Sir Bruce Keogh to pursue the creation of a register of breast implants in his review of PIP implants. I hope that the Government will put in place measures to ensure that any new registry learns lessons from the NJR’s successes.
	I recently went through a minor medical procedure and was asked to provide data as part of a broader clinical dataset and to allow them to be used. The form started off by saying how to opt out of providing that data, rather than explaining to me as the patient why it was beneficial for those data to be collected. When such registers are produced, I hope that the Minister will agree that the starting point should be that the authorisation form should not start with the negative procedure of how to opt out but starts with positive information about why such data are beneficial to the individual and to society more broadly.

Stephen Mosley: The NJR is a fantastic resource that is very well used, but it might be worth while pointing out that problems with metal hips were first detected in Australia in 2007 because there is a registry there that allowed them to be noticed. The metal hips were withdrawn in Australia in 2009, but it took until 2010 for the problems to be noticed by the British registry and they were withdrawn in the UK. Although it can be a good system, it is not perfect and it needs people to monitor it and ensure that any problems are picked up.

Andrew Miller: You will be pleased to know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the hon. Gentleman has just taken the next paragraph out of my speech. He is absolutely right, but the interesting point is that the Government told us that the Australian regulator did not communicate its data to the MHRA or other international regulators and the MHRA first learned of safety concerns in April 2010. Although it is not necessarily the MHRA’s job to keep an eye on adverse incidents worldwide, we must remember that over those two or three years many risky implants were put into patients, with some devastating consequences. The hon. Gentleman’s observation is spot on.
	The European Commission and the UK Government must seek to improve the speed of reaction to incidents such as the two adverse ones that were picked up outside the EU and I will be interested to hear the Minister’s suggestions about how that can be achieved. I believe there is general agreement between the Committee and the Government on the broad principles of the system and what needs to be changed. I hope hon. Members will agree that our inquiry shed some light on important issues affecting UK patient safety.
	In conclusion, I will sum up our inquiry on the regulation of medical implants in the EU and the UK as a call for two things: better use of evidence in implant approvals and more transparency throughout the system. I hope we can find a way forward.

Stephen Mosley: The hon. Gentleman has gone through almost the entire checklist of points that I wanted to make. However, one aspect that he has not covered yet is self-reporting by patients. We heard examples in Committee and we suggested that it would be good practice if patients self-reported, which might allow problems to be picked up earlier than they are through the formal channels. Does the hon. Gentleman have any comments on self-reporting?

Andrew Miller: I have some ideas about how that can be developed. That angle, although not central to the inquiry, is important for the development of a registry. I gave an example of people being invited to opt out of a registry before anything else is put to them. What needs to be explained to them are the health benefits of working in a more collegiate way and sharing data, and they should be encouraged both for their personal health and for broader societal benefit to self-report. That is a hugely important area that we need to develop through better engagement between clinician and patient at the point when the procedure is about to start.
	This is a complex subject and I do not envy the Minister his task in negotiating on it. Unfortunately, some regulators have demonstrably not maintained the standards that occur in most of the 27 countries, but in the interests of patient safety and the advancement of medical science it is vital that we work together and solve the problems that the report has highlighted.

John Pugh: With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, I should like to break some new ground in this debate on estimates day by talking just a little bit about the estimates. We have quite a lot to agree to. I do not know whether hon. Members have studied the papers for the day. We are agreeing to an extra £1.2 billion of expenditure in the revenue account and a reduction in the consolidated fund draw-down of £472 million. In previous debates we have debated similar figures for the Department for Work and Pensions, the Ministry of Justice, the Department for Communities and Local Government and so on. At the end of the day we will vote through £213 billion of Government expenditure and probably talk about none of it at all.
	There is a reason for my raising the issue at this point. There is an odd gap between what we are notionally doing and what we are actually doing. A few months ago we had another estimates day when we voted through similar huge amounts but talked about Turkey. The nation’s finances were relatively undiscussed. It is odd procedure that the one thing we do not talk about on estimates day is numbers or estimates, but does it matter? It does in a funny sort of way, because Parliament is supposed to scrutinise the nation’s accounts and it clearly does not do so. I think the Government are aware of it. The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) and I were taxed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury with looking at how we scrutinise the nation’s accounts on occasions like this. It was announced at the Dispatch Box—

Nigel Evans: Order. I am giving the hon. Gentleman a little leeway but the matter
	under discussion is as on the Order Paper, so I would like reference to be made to that, rather than a general debate.

John Pugh: I am coming to that, Mr Deputy Speaker. In a way, that illustrates my point, because what we are actually debating is the supplementary estimate. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and I were tasked with looking at how the House debates supplementary estimates, and the answer we came to was this: not very well. Our report, a copy of which is in the Library for hon. Members to consult, testifies to that finding, and we produced adequate evidence for it, because the report was co-ordinated to some extent by the Treasury, which keeps a close eye on these things. I am suggesting that the work of examining the nation’s finances is boring, dull and, at times, anorakish, but it certainly needs to be done, and it probably should be done by Parliament, and on occasions like this.

Jamie Reed: On that point, which the hon. Gentleman is making very well, can he recall when the House last divided on an estimates debate?

John Pugh: I certainly cannot. There are occasions when we talk about general topics, but I think that I am right in saying that the reasons we have estimates days is so that Parliament, as well as the Treasury, can scrutinise the nation’s accounts. I regard that as highly desirable in this age of austerity, when we need to count every penny and record the overspend, underspend, virement and so on.
	I will now turn to the subject that appears to be the subject of this debate but is not actually on the Order Paper: medical devices and implants. I would like to make a few observations on what the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) calls post-market surveillance, which we agree needs to be improved. That is obviously wholly desirable because it will eliminate problems, improve patient security and so on. I would not disagree with a single word voiced by him or his Committee. I agree that there should be more transparency and more feedback from patients and clinicians so that devices are safe and do exactly what they are supposed to do. However, we can improve regulatory vigilance. The MHRA has done a good job so far, but it obviously could do better. There is clearly a role for increased manufacturer responsibility. That is all very important.
	The simple point I want to make about implants—I am not allowed to talk about the huge sums of money we are voting through—is that detecting failings is quite a complex matter. It is not as simple as it was with the breast implants, which was a case of the wrong substance being provided, which is fraud. I will illustrate my point with a real-life example. I am familiar with a case in Nottingham involving a number of unfortunate episodes that followed heart surgery in which a particular type and brand of stent was used. A number of people were called back for second operations because the stents leaked. I believe that there were a number of deaths and some litigation. Initially it was thought that the device was at fault, because it looked as though the people who had the device experienced certain problems and complications, and there had been other problems with it elsewhere. It was subject to a court case and prolonged
	investigation. Ultimately, the blame was attributed—this bears out the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton)—to the surgical procedure, rather than to the device itself.
	Therefore, there is a particular problem when it comes to post-market surveillance. Is it the equipment or how it is used that is responsible, because the equipment is only as good as its user? That is a particular issue in surgery, because surgeons up and down the land are very particular about what bits of kit they use and what type of equipment they work with.

Andrew Miller: The hon. Gentleman is making a perfect case for a proper registry. If a proper registry were maintained, one would be able to see whether the patterns of failure related to a location, which would mean it was a surgical failure, or a particular type or brand of product. He is underlining one of the Committee’s key recommendations.

John Pugh: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and pay tribute to his Committee for the work it has done. My simple point is that post-market surveillance is complex, because devices need to be judged alongside the patient experience and the clinician experience, and that gets more complex and difficult if the market for a particular device is relatively small. In the Nottingham case, the patients could not get fully informed feedback because it was neither in the manufacturer’s nor the surgeon’s interest to incriminate themselves. There was the added problem, as there is often is, that the manufacturer was in a different country from the user of the device. That is partly why products that have been found over time to be faulty in one country can still be used in another country because its regulatory body has not picked up on the problem.
	This is not an easy matter, and I applaud the Committee’s efforts to get things right. I am slightly disappointed that we cannot have a wider debate on the nation’s finances. I hope that the Minister will explain what the £1.2 billion of expenditure that we are agreeing is all about, because that will be a blessing to the House.

Jim Shannon: I do not serve on the Committee and I do not have the knowledge of the hon. Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) and for Southport (John Pugh) on this subject, but I want to bring a couple of matters to the House’s attention, including some that are of importance to my constituents.
	My first point relates to recommendation 29 on transparency of evidence. It is very important to have that recommendation in the report for the sake of those who have had breast implants over the years. Some of my constituents unfortunately found themselves on the wrong side of the PIP scandal when the companies that had been involved in doing the operations then went bankrupt or disappeared from the market. There were also some cross-border issues in relation to the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Ladies who had put aside substantial amounts of money for the operation, which in many cases they probably could not afford, found themselves at the cold end, if I may use that terminology, of what happened. I am very pleased to see in the report the transparency that the Committee has sought to achieve.
	Will the Minister confirm for the record that all the proposals in the recommendations will apply to Northern Ireland? I am ever mindful that health is a devolved matter in Northern Ireland, and I want to make sure that the recommendations, which are very well put, will apply there in the same way as on the mainland. I am ever mindful, too, that in many parts of the world people can buy almost any items online—not implants or hip replacements, but almost every drug for almost every condition, including cancer, heart conditions, epilepsy and depression. There is always someone out there who will try to take advantage of someone else’s unfortunate health issues.
	My second point relates to help for small companies. Recommendation 12 is very important, and I quote it for the record:
	“We are not fully convinced by assurances provided by the Government or Commission that this would not hinder small companies bringing products to market. The Commission and Government should explain how they intend to support small, innovative companies in the medical services sector if pre-market approval becomes prohibitively costly.”
	Small companies in all parts of the United Kingdom hold the key to the employment opportunities that arise, as the Minister and, indeed, the Prime Minister have said. That is certainly true in my constituency. T. G. Eakin is a pharmaceutical business outside Comber that produces some of the most excellent medical products, including a high-quality skin protection product for use in stoma and wound care that it exports all over the world and for which it has received numerous awards. The company is renowned for its quality and expertise.
	I want to underline the point that we should import such products only when it is not possible to produce them ourselves. We must fight for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. When we do import such products, it should be highly regulated. Perhaps the Minister could indicate how we can provide more opportunities for small businesses to manufacture these types of products in the United Kingdom. T. G. Eakin provides jobs for some 80 people in my constituency and is planning a factory expansion that will produce about 20 more jobs.
	In conclusion, there is a high level of expertise in some companies in the United Kingdom. Recommendation 12 of the report plays up that point. Perhaps the Minister could respond to that recommendation. There are massive opportunities for the United Kingdom to do more in this area. Why do we import when we can produce quality products at home and produce jobs off the back of it? That is what we should do. We can lead the world with our expertise not only in the manufacturing of products such as those produced by T. G. Eakin, but in our universities. Queen’s university Belfast and other universities across the United Kingdom explore all the medical matters and ailments that affect society. That provides opportunities. Recommendation 12 could perhaps help us to make the most of those. I would like to know how we can do that across the United Kingdom. If we can do more, let us do it.

Jamie Reed: The report of the Science and Technology Committee was produced under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller). I congratulate
	him on the work of the Committee and on an excellent report. He is known in this House for his diligence and attention to detail, and the report illustrates those instincts. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Members for Southport (John Pugh) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who have made telling and important contributions.
	The House has demonstrated not only a shared understanding of the issues before us in this brief debate on medical implants, but a welcome unity of purpose. The House is at its best when it acts in such a fashion. Debates like this allow us to break through what actors call the “fourth wall”. I hope that anyone who is watching this debate can see that, as should always be the case, we are not making by-the-numbers political arguments, but are making a sincere effort to address the issues before us for the benefit of the people who send us here.
	In health care regulatory systems, medical implants and devices hold a unique status. The synthesis of new medicines and other pharmaceutical products is done through highly precise chemical processes, whereas implants are developed largely through an iterative engineering process. As we can see from the Committee’s report, that presents unique challenges. The bulk of the regulatory framework for medical testing focuses on the side effects and efficacy of new drugs. Although the emphasis is on medicines, there need to be mechanisms for the effective regulation of safe medical implants, given the fundamental differences between implants and medicines.
	As the Committee’s report highlighted, there are weaknesses in the current regulatory system. As Members have mentioned, those have been highlighted by the recent PIP breast implant scandal and by faulty metal-on-metal hip replacements. In looking at those high-profile scandals, we must recognise the role of criminal activity, especially in the PIP scandal. In that case, it quickly became apparent that the company that manufactured the implants was engaged in a clear case of fraud. There is no reasonable and workable system that could prevent such cases. That fact is recognised by many in the industry and, I am sure, by Members across the House.
	Although the PIP scandal was caused by criminal activity, it presented the opportunity for us to take a deep look at our regulatory framework and to assess its strengths and weaknesses. The system is obviously not perfect, as I am sure Members across the House will agree, and improvements need to be made. The case of the DePuy metal-on-metal hip implants shows that faulty products have been certified under the current system.
	There is a fine balance to strike when debating the regulatory framework of medical impacts because it is essential that all products are safe, and that they bring only benefits to patients and are not harmful. It is also necessary for access to products to be improved and expedited. The ideal is to bring safe medical implants to patients in an efficient and timely manner, and that is the sole purpose of a regulatory system in this context.
	We must be increasingly aware of how the regulatory system can affect the entire health economy. To emphasise the importance of that let us consider a condition that poses enormous public health, policy and financial questions, as well as questions of patients’ rights and expectations: type 1 diabetes.
	I declare an interest as a type 1 diabetic who was diagnosed through diabetic ketoacidosis just two weeks before the 2010 general election—ideal preparation, I must say. I raise the issue not to bore the House with my personal interests but because figures released this week by Diabetes UK show that the number of people in the UK who have been diagnosed with diabetes has reached 3 million for the first time. That is an increase of 132,000 over the last year and a further 850,000 people are now believed to suffer from undiagnosed type 2 diabetes. Each year an estimated 24,000 people die from diabetes-related medical conditions and the situation is expected to worsen—I know the Minister is aware of the figures. Barbara Young, the chief executive of Diabetes UK, has called the situation a “public health emergency”, and she is right.
	It cannot be stated enough that type 1 and type 2 diabetes are different conditions and differ in many ways. Type 2 diabetes is often the result of lifestyle circumstances or choices, but type 1 diabetes is a genetic, sometimes hereditary auto-immune condition that is not related to the lifestyle of an individual. The latest breakdown of figures that I have comes from 2009. Research undertaken by the university of Birmingham and the National Institute for Health Research showed that at that time, 488,089 people in England and Wales had type 1 diabetes, some 15,000 of whom were children and young people between nought and 24 years of age. In 2009-10, 27,200 hospital admissions and 96,651 bed days were due to type 1 diabetes in England. To be blunt for a moment, apart from concerning ourselves with the needs of the patient, that is costing the NHS a fortune.
	Also this week the US-based Diabetes Research Institute announced details of its research into what it describes as a “quantum leap” towards a biological cure for type 1 diabetes with the development of its BioHub—a bioengineered “mini-organ” that mimics the pancreas. It contains real insulin-producing cells that can sense blood sugar and release the precise amount of insulin needed in real time. In short, if successful, such a treatment could transform the lives of 500,000 people in England and Wales, save the NHS a fortune that could be spent elsewhere, and help begin to meet the challenge of the public health emergency we face. With that case study we see that the improvement of a system that expedites access and demonstrates the safety of medical implants for patients could not be clearer or more important.
	The report covers four main points, and I will take each one in turn. First, I will discuss the system of pre-market approvals and the difficulties surrounding them, before looking at transparency in the regulatory system, post-market scrutiny of products and international co-operation. Pre-market scrutiny of medical products is the minimum prerequisite when it comes to health care products, whether medicines or implants, but there are fundamental reasons why there is no one-size-fits-all system for testing them. With medicines, doses can be reduced and increased to test for side effects and efficacy, but, as I am sure all Members will recognise, it is impossible to change the dosage of a hip replacement. Furthermore, once an implant has been placed, it is difficult to remove it.
	Similar issues present themselves with clinical trialling procedures. Medicines pass through the body relatively quickly, meaning that medicinal trials can be conducted
	within a reasonable time frame. A hip implant is typically designed to last over 10 years, and to obtain reliable clinical data that can withstand proper scrutiny, trials on those implants would have to last a number of years, which in many cases is simply not practical. A system has therefore developed that uses different types of clinical evidence to assess safety and efficacy. Where possible and practical, clinical trials on products should take place, but for implants, regulatory bodies will take what are known as equivalence data as the basis for their decision making. That was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston and is covered extensively in the report. These are data obtained from similar products. As I have said previously, products are developed in an iterative process and these data can be from earlier iterations that may have been available to patients for a number of years.
	There are a number of issues with this method. First, the British Medical Journal has argued that, due to the progression of new products and advances in this field, regulators may have difficulty assessing which products, and therefore data, are equivalent. This difficulty is, to some extent, surmounted by the differing regulatory requirements of different classifications of medical devices. Most medical implants are categorised as class 2b and class 3. These are the higher risk categories and this ensures that extra safety checks are in place.
	Class 2b manufacturers are subject to annual detailed assessments of their facilities, practices and staff training levels to ensure they are performing to a high standard. With class 3 products, notified regulatory bodies also have access to technical documentation to ensure safe practices. So the difficulties inherent in the pre-market assessment of medical implants mean that post-market scrutiny and surveillance of products are essential in maintaining standards in the industry and in improving future regulatory regimes.
	The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and other groups agree that this is one of the most important tenets of a regulatory system. It is almost impossible, and certainly not accurate, to predict the medical performance of devices after a considerable number of years. Continued, randomised testing of devices should form part of the regulatory processes and should make a keen contribution to assessing the efficacy and safety of products.
	Looking at the level of international co-operation when it comes to regulating medical devices, it is crucial to realise that this is now a global industry. The EU Commission has recommended greater co-operation between member states in this field. It recommends that there should be a European body responsible for dealing with notifications of devices prior to market entry. I understand the Committee’s report does not accept this recommendation as it would lead to another layer of bureaucracy and delay. However, greater harmonisation of practices to ensure high standards are met by manufacturers throughout the world is interesting, and this is an issue that needs to be looked at in greater detail.

Sarah Newton: Another important reason we decided it would not be in the national interest to support that recommendation is that we believe that it contained the potential for a race to the bottom. Other European countries do not regulate as well as we do, and effective
	regulation is really important. We felt that a lowering of standards in other European countries might mean that implants could get in through the back door.

Jamie Reed: The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. The Committee’s thinking on that point is clearly justifiable and robust. It also raises another issue. We all need to ensure that the industries we are talking about have a predictable, stable and safe environment in which to operate so that they can innovate, attract investment and continue the advanced manufacturing processes we need to secure advances in treatment and more.
	It is important, however, that the focus upon constant improvement should be one of the core underpinnings of any regulatory framework and this is sadly lacking in the system at present. The key to improving the regulatory framework—and in many ways the key theme of the Committee’s report—is transparency. The BMJ acknowledges that there are
	“many vested interests that disincentivise manufacturers and clinicians from highlighting problems”.
	Commercial confidentiality is another stumbling block. This need not be the case as a more open system, with more published information and greater access to assessments of products, will foster greater trust in the system, which will then translate into wider public trust of the industry and of manufacturers within it.
	An article in The Lancet from June 2012 argues that patients and medical professionals should have a greater role in reporting adverse effects from their devices. Who could disagree? It should be clear to everyone that the fairest and safest way of assessing medical products is to allow experts access to as much information as possible. The Committee’s report makes it clear that the default position on information should be transparency and openness, and should be confidential only in extreme circumstances. It is right that the MHRA has a specialist committee to assess the safety of products: the committee on the safety of devices. What is totally wrong, however, is that it works in secret. The Select Committee expressed its disappointment at not being able to evaluate the work of the CSD, and it seems impossible to evaluate the system as a whole when such a key part of it appears to be shrouded in secrecy.
	The Committee’s report does not advocate widespread changes to the system, but it rightly recommends a significant improvement in the transparency of information available to medical professionals. In medicine, negative data, as the hon. Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) said, is as crucial as positive data in assessing what is right for a patient. I assure the Minister that the Government will have the support of the Opposition if they wish to make quick progress on improving transparency in the system.

Norman Lamb: I thank the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) for the clarity with which he presented the Committee’s findings, and I thank the Committee for its valuable work.
	The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed), made some interesting points about the challenge of diabetes. I note his diagnosis of type 1 diabetes and the impact it has had, particularly in the
	run-up to the general election. It beggars belief that he had to cope with that in the middle of a campaign. He made a point about the potential power of science and devices to make a difference to patients’ lives and to save the system money—a double win that we are all after.
	Before I go on to talk about points raised in the Committee’s report, let me deal with the specific point about Northern Ireland, which was raised by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). Most issues relating to the regulation of medical devices are UK-wide, and the MHRA operates across the UK. Some issues are devolved if they relate to the operation of the health service, and officials at the MHRA work closely with their counterparts in all the devolved Administrations. I hope that reassures the hon. Gentleman.
	I will set out briefly what is currently being done to improve the regulatory system for medical devices. In October 2012, the Government began negotiations with other EU member states to revise the regulatory framework for medical devices, including implants. That will mean completely overhauling the regulatory system that has been in place for more than 20 years. The changes will take effect in 2017 at the earliest. In the interim, member states and the Commission are tightening up the most critical aspects of the current legislation. On top of the legislative changes, member states are implementing a voluntary programme of action that takes on board the lessons learned from the PIP scandal, which was mentioned earlier. However, we are not merely relying on the EU. The UK is taking its own action, including putting in place the recommendations of Earl Howe’s report, which was published in May last year. In addition, Sir Bruce Keogh’s review of the regulation of cosmetic interventions is due to report later this month.
	Let me now turn to the issues raised in the Committee’s report. First, I would like to talk about the requirements on clinical data for medical devices. There are legitimate concerns about the quality of manufacturers’ clinical evidence, as well as about how rigorously notified bodies then evaluate the evidence they are presented with. The Government’s response highlights how the Commission’s proposal will address those concerns. In particular, we consider that the requirement on notified bodies to have in-house clinical expertise will be a big and important step forward that will ensure that notified bodies really scrutinise and challenge manufacturers on the quality of their clinical evidence.
	I am pleased that the draft legislation requires manufacturers to comply with clear rules on clinical evaluation. It is also much clearer on when manufacturers can use clinical data from an equivalent device when conducting their own investigation—one of the issues discussed during this debate. None the less, by the end of the negotiations, we should have legislation that goes even further to ensure that notified bodies have access to high-quality clinical expertise. We do not have any detailed proposals, at this stage, but one idea is to establish an approved list of clinical experts that notified bodies must consult when assessing clinical evidence.
	In addition, clinical data must be transparent, so that the procurement of devices is based on solid evidence. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston raised concerns about this point. Current practice in the NHS
	means that clinicians take into account several factors before using a device, including the clinical evidence provided and the track record of the manufacturer. In the light of issues identified with some brands of metal-on-metal hips, the chief medical officer and the NHS medical director wrote to all NHS trusts in England last March asking them to ensure that there was sound clinical governance of procurement decisions about joint implants—this is the important point I want to make in response to what he said. I would expect these principles for the procurement process to apply to all medical devices used in the NHS.
	It is worth highlighting how the UK is taking action, over and above the requirements of EU legislation, to support the safe introduction of new hip and knee implants into the market. Manufacturers, including Johnson & Johnson, Stryker and Biomet, have applied to participate in a pilot scheme that will give surgeons earlier and more accurate data on how well new hip and knee implants performed. This project involves close co-operation with clinicians, the NHS and the UK’s national joint registry. The MHRA is currently considering how this pilot could add value to other categories of device.

Andrew Miller: Will the Minister confirm that it would be perfectly reasonable, as part of the regulatory process a device must go through, for a procurement officer to ask to be notified of any failed applications to other countries?

Norman Lamb: It would be absolutely in order for a procurement officer to do that. The more searching their inquiries, the better, given the importance of what we are trying to achieve. We welcome the hon. Gentleman’s opinions on this issue and will consider how the system can be further strengthened. He makes a valuable contribution to our considerations.
	The Government agree with the Committee about the need to improve the environment for clinical trials in this country, and we are doing a lot of work on that already. Things such as the life sciences strategy are making it easier for patients to get involved in research, and we have also set up the Health Research Authority, which is simplifying the approval process for ethical research.
	To return to a point made by the shadow Minister, we wholeheartedly agree on the importance of transparency, which brings numerous benefits. I have always strongly believed that it empowers patients, informs and liberates health care professionals and builds trust in industry, notified bodies and public authorities. The proposed new European regulations will increase transparency, giving the public, patients and clinicians access, first, to clear information on the safety and performance of devices; secondly, registration information on devices and the companies that make, distribute and use them; and thirdly, information on the electronic traceability system for devices.
	Furthermore, the outcome of peer reviews between different national authorities—reports from each member state on how they have monitored their notified bodies and statements from notified bodies on their independence and impartiality—will also be made public. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port—I apologise for abbreviating his constituency—drew attention to concerns about the quality of different authorities across the EU, so this is
	an important step. The UK is already pushing for improvements in transparency in negotiations with other member states. For example, as we highlighted in our response, we would like to see clinical data from post-market surveillance published, so that the available information on the safety and performance of devices always remains up to date. We can do more as well. The Government’s public consultation on the proposed regulation closed on 21 January. It provided us with a lot of useful ideas, which we are currently considering in detail.
	Let me turn to the issue of notified bodies and pre-market assessment. Strengthening the quality of notified bodies is absolutely one of the most important ways to improve the regulatory system. The Government agree with the Committee’s recommendations in this area. We are pleased that the Commission’s proposal goes a long way towards addressing the current weaknesses in the system. Competent authorities will review each other and share ideas on how to improve the way in which they monitor notified bodies. The Commission can take action in response to a member state’s concern about a particular notified body. There is significantly more detail on the criteria that notified bodies must fulfil, and teams of experts from different competent authorities will audit notified bodies every three years. The Government agree with the Committee that a new layer of European bureaucracy is not the solution to problems with notified bodies. We need to focus not on who carries out pre-market assessment, but on how it is carried out.
	Regardless of all that, we cannot just sit back and wait for the revised legislation to come into place—it is some way off yet. As I outlined previously, we are acting before then to ensure that notified bodies improve as soon as possible. Interim action is being taken across Europe. It includes, first, joint audits of notified bodies on a voluntary basis. The first of these took place in the UK in January and many more are planned for 2013. Secondly, all member states are auditing the quality of their notified bodies that assess high-risk devices. Thirdly, rules on notified bodies and how they audit manufacturers, including undertaking unannounced inspections, are being put together.
	While we strengthen the pre-market assessment of devices, it is equally important that adequate post-market surveillance and vigilance procedures are put in place. My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (John Pugh) entertained us and educated us on some important issues. He drew attention to the complexity of identifying the cause of a problem and whether it is the equipment or how it is used. That is not always easy, and the court action he referred to very much drew attention to the complexity of these issues. I am afraid that I am unlikely to be able to satisfy him on the £1.2 billion, but I liked the effort on his part.

John Pugh: I hope the Minister did not think I was being awkward in any way, but the original purpose of estimates day was clearly not to discuss medical implants. However, I have now learnt not only that we do not talk about estimates on estimates day, but that we are not allowed to talk about them.

Norman Lamb: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I have never known him to be awkward; it is not in his nature.
	While we strengthen the pre-market assessment of devices, it is equally important that adequate post-market surveillance and vigilance procedures are put in place. The Committee recommended setting up a black triangle scheme for medical devices approved with equivalence data. I recognise the Committee’s rationale for that recommendation, but we do not think it is the best way forward. A national scheme would place potentially disproportionate costs on industry and risk a loss of competitiveness for the UK. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) correctly drew attention to the enormous potential we have in the UK for generating new business in this area and the importance of giving businesses every opportunity to start up and develop. We do not want to impose disproportionate costs on UK businesses and put that potential growth at risk. Instead, recognising the importance of the point made by the hon. Gentleman and the Committee, we are considering what we can do at the EU level. For example, notified bodies could require manufacturers to carry out post-market studies for certain devices.
	Finally, the Committee recommended that the Government consider making the reporting of incidents by health care professionals mandatory. Increasing reporting is clearly critical to ensuring that the regulator has a full picture of emerging problems with devices. Mandatory reporting is an option that the Government are continuing to consider, although it cannot be the only solution. The MHRA is currently leading work to improve reporting and has been working closely with the General Medical Council and the medical royal colleges to consider how to strengthen professional responsibilities in this area.
	In conclusion, the Government attach great importance to strengthening the regulatory system for medical implants. I am immensely grateful to the Committee for its work and recommendations, just as I am to everyone who has contributed to this debate or at some other time. I am confident that the work being undertaken now and to improve the European legislation will make a real difference to safety and transparency.

Andrew Miller: With the leave of the House, I thank the Minister for his response and thank the Members who have contributed to this short but important debate, which has underlined the value of our Select Committee structure. We have produced a report that has genuinely informed the House and that has, I hope, helped progress some difficult areas of negotiation being undertaken by the Government.
	The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made an important point about small businesses. Next Wednesday, he will be interested to read the Science and Technology Committee’s next report on bridging the “valley of death”, which is such a complex issue for many of our high-tech businesses. The same can be said about any of the businesses described by the hon. Gentleman, which find it so difficult to grow organically in a complex business environment.
	I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr Reed) for his kind comments and for adopting the same spirit as we did in trying to deal with the issue in a collegiate way. Although UK plc is sometimes renowned for being the awkward squad with regard to matters European, this is an issue on which we are in a very
	strong position, and many of our European partners—I use that word deliberately—recognise the value of what we have done to maintain standards. We have worries with regard to only a minority of European countries.
	My only concern with the Minister’s response was in respect of the black triangle issue, but perhaps we can deal with that offline at a more convenient time. I thank him and other Members who have contributed to the debate, and once again thank my Committee and its staff for their contribution to this important discussion.
	Question deferred (Standing Order No.54).

Thomas Docherty: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You, of course, are the guardian of good debate. You will have heard the comments of the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) about not being clear about what is and what is not in order to discuss on estimates day. Do you have any advice for Members on how we can stay in order when discussing estimates?

Mr Speaker: On that particular matter, the Liaison Committee made a determination, which the House approved. On the basis that the hon. Gentleman and other right hon. and hon. Members are familiar with the determination of the Liaison Committee and with the fact and terms of its approval by the House, I cannot imagine that this will be a matter of doubt or uncertainty in the mind of any hon. or right hon. Member, and certainly not in the mind of a Member so demonstrably perspicacious as the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty). In one respect, and one respect only, the hon. Gentleman has erred, however understandably. He suggests that I will have heard the comments of the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh). I have not yet experienced that joy, but a study of Hansard will disclose the necessary to me, and I look forward to that, as the hon. Gentleman can imagine, with eager anticipation.

Sittings of the House (22 March)

Mr Speaker: I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. To move the motion, I call the Leader of the House.

Andrew Lansley: I beg to move,
	That this House shall sit on Friday 22 March.
	On 18 October 2012, I published the full parliamentary recess calendar to 6 January 2014. The whole House will recognise the benefit to Members, staff, the House authorities and the House service of giving as much certainty and notice as possible of future sitting days. It enables effective scheduling of hon. Members’ work in their constituencies and allows the House authorities to plan major work projects as effectively and efficiently as possible. On 17 December 2012, the dates I had announced were put to the House in the form of a motion. The House agreed, without a Division, to the dates that had been proposed. Indeed, I do not recall any debate on the matter, or any objections being received from Opposition Members.

John Spellar: The right hon. Gentleman has just said that the motion was put to the House on 17 December. Had the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the date of the Budget by then?

Andrew Lansley: From memory, no.

John Spellar: I want to help the right hon. Gentleman with this, so that he can construct his argument more effectively. My understanding is that the Chancellor had on 11 December announced the date of the Budget in March.

Andrew Lansley: I will gladly check my recollection, of course. My recollection is that the date of the Budget was announced in the new year, but I will gladly check that point. I am not sure that it is germane to the argument, however, because whatever the position might be, I had at that point already announced—on 18 October 2012, as I said—the calendar for the year ahead.

John Spellar: rose—

Andrew Lansley: The right hon. Gentleman is standing. I think he is presuming that I am going to give way to him a third time.

John Spellar: I can develop my argument in my speech, but it might help the right hon. Gentleman if I do so now. The reason why it is relevant whether the Chancellor had already announced the date of the Budget is that the Leader of the House would have put the dates to the House in the knowledge that the Budget was going to be in March and knowing how many days it would require, and therefore knowing how it would fit in with his sittings pattern.

Stephen Mosley: So why did you support it on the 17th?

Andrew Lansley: I hear an astute point being made from a sedentary position by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley), who says that if that had been the case, surely the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues would have raised the matter on 17 December. I do not think that they did so. I see no difficulty with this.
	As I said, I clearly set out the planned dates on 18 October, and the resolution then provided Members with confirmation that the House would rise for the Easter recess on Tuesday 26 March 2013 and return on Monday 15 April 2013. Following the publication of the calendar, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the date for the budget as Wednesday 20 March 2013. The motion on the Order Paper today adds a further sitting day to those already agreed by the House and does so within the framework of recess dates set out in the calendar.

Thomas Docherty: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for being courteous, and I would expect no less. Am I right in thinking that last year the Government published the Fridays on which we were planning to sit—again, it was beneficial to the House, the staff and others—and, if so, why did the Government not publish the sitting Fridays for this year?

Andrew Lansley: What is clear, as I said, is that in order to facilitate the House, the shape of the recess framework is the most important characteristic. We want to enable hon. Members and the House authorities to structure their future activities around relatively established dates for major recesses.

Philip Hollobone: I give my right hon. Friend 10 out of 10 for publishing his original timetable well in advance, as that is a very good thing, but what has he got against Wednesdays? My view and that of my constituents is that we want to hear from the Prime Minister, especially at the start of a recess period. Why do Sessions always end on a Tuesday?

Andrew Lansley: I will come on to that point in a moment, if I may, when I address some of the issues that the shadow Leader of the House raised at business questions.
	The motion adds a further sitting day and its effect will therefore be to allow the four-day Budget debate to take place, as well as to accommodate the opportunity for the Backbench Business Committee to schedule business, including the traditional pre-recess Adjournment debate, on the last day before recess.
	Sitting on an additional Friday would allow a continuation of the Budget debate but it would not be its last day, so there would be no requirement for Members to vote on that day. That is the best option to provide the balance between the certainty requested by the House, which the publication of the calendar in mid-October permitted, and the disposal of business before it, including providing the Backbench Business Committee with access to the debate opportunities that it would expect.
	It may be helpful if I remind the House that there is a precedent for the proposal to sit on a Friday to allow the continuation of the Budget debate before a recess. Just last year, the House agreed to sit on Friday 23 March
	to continue the Budget debate, and I am not aware that any issues were raised following that sitting. The precedents go further back than that, as another occasion occurred under the last Administration on 11 April 2003.
	As you said, Mr Speaker, an amendment in the name of the Opposition has been selected, which seeks to amend the motion to produce the effect that the House would sit not on Friday 22 March, but on Wednesday 27 March. I fear that the Opposition, in tabling the amendment, might just be thinking back to their time in government and imputing similar motives to this Government. I think they are wrong in that.

Angela Eagle: What a gross calumny!

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Lady set out her reasons during business questions on 7 February. I addressed her points then, but it may be helpful for me to recap. Her first reason was that Members might already have made arrangements in their constituencies for Friday 22 March. This is valid up to the point that Members are just as likely to have made arrangements in their constituencies for Wednesday 27 March—the date proposed in the Opposition amendment. It is important to bear in mind that only those Members who wished to speak on that day in the Budget debate would be affected. Others might have commitments in their constituencies that they regard as inescapable, but on three other days they would have the opportunity, subject to catching the Speaker’s eye, to contribute to that debate. It is not a case of “speak on that Friday or lose the opportunity”.
	There is a choice here, but my preference—and, I believe, the preference of Members—would be to sit on that Friday and not on the subsequent Wednesday. While the calendar is always issued with the proviso that it is subject to the progress of business, the Government are conscious that having announced dates, Members and staff might have made arrangements for the Easter recess, which it would now be inconvenient, to say the least, to change. Indeed, as I have said, the Friday would not involve the prospect of voting, and I can add that we do not intend to arrange ministerial statements for that day. Those with necessary constituency business will still be able to deal with it, which might not be the case were the House to sit on Wednesday.
	The second reason given by the shadow Leader of the House was that if the House rose on a Tuesday, there could be no Prime Minister’s Question Time during that week. I do not think that anyone could accuse the Prime Minister of avoiding his duties in the House. [Interruption.] I must tell the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) that his view is contradicted by the facts. The Prime Minister has made more statements to the House per sitting day in the last Session than his predecessor, spending more than 30 hours at the Dispatch Box in so doing. He also gives evidence to the Liaison Committee, and he takes all his responsibilities to the House very seriously.
	I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) should take a look at the 2013 calendar that I published. It shows six occasions on which recesses have been proposed. There is the February recess, which we have already had, and there are the Easter, Whitsun, summer, conference and Christmas recesses. The plan was for the House to rise on a Tuesday on two of those
	occasions, on a Thursday on three of them and on a Friday on one of them. No pattern is involved; it is simply a matter of trying to ensure that each of the recesses has the right balance of time overall. A simple examination of the parliamentary calendar will show that there are no grounds for the supposition that we have avoided a Wednesday sitting.

Philip Hollobone: My right hon. Friend is making some very good points, and this is not a black-and-white issue, although I must add that I think that, when the rising of the House on a Tuesday can be avoided, it should rise on a Wednesday or a Thursday. However, this is not just about Prime Minister’s Question Time; it is also about all the other business of the House. It is about all the Select Committee meetings and all the sittings in Westminster Hall that take place on Wednesdays. All that business is, in effect, lost when the House rises on a Tuesday.

Andrew Lansley: It is a matter, overall, of the number of days on which the House sits. My hon. Friend may take the view that it should sit more often. As it happens, I suspect that at the end of this year it will have sat for more days than it sat in any of the preceding four calendar years. I also think that before, for example, the Easter recess, it is preferable for us not to continue our business until Maundy Thursday.
	I know that the Opposition are keen to ensure that the Government are held to account, and that is to be expected, but they really ought to focus on the substance rather than the processes. When it comes to the mechanisms of accountability, the Government are achieving greater and more meaningful scrutiny than has ever been achieved before. Let me name just a few positive developments. There is more pre-legislative scrutiny, there are many substantial debates via the Backbench Business Committee, there is the work of Select Committees and their elected Chairs that we discussed in the Chamber a couple of weeks ago, and there is extra time for scrutiny during the Report stages of Bills. Those are major changes that have shifted the balance from the Executive to the House.
	I understand the Opposition’s intentions—I understand them very well—but I assure them that any fears that they may have, in reality, about lack of time for scrutiny are wholly misplaced, and I commend the motion to the House.

Angela Eagle: This may seem a dry issue on which to take up the House’s time. After all, recess dates are rarely the subject of much contention; they are rarely, if ever, noticed, and much less often divide the House. So what is the problem with the sittings motion, and why are we trying to amend it?
	We decided to table our amendment because, after two and a half years of experience, we have begun to perceive a pattern in the Government’s behaviour, and especially in that of the Prime Minister. We have realised that he does not much like being accountable to the House at Prime Minister’s Question Time, and that he therefore arranges for the House to rise on Tuesdays as often as he thinks that he can get away with it. The hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) made that point
	from the Government Benches. That way, the Prime Minister avoids Prime Minister’s questions, which take place on Wednesdays. In contemplating this emerging trend, I thought it might just be one of those random patterns that occurs by accident, until I noticed that our Prime Minister seems to be anxious for the House not to sit long enough for him to have to face Prime Minister’s questions, especially after a Budget.
	That is the crux of the issue before us today. For the second year running, the House has been asked to sit on a Friday to accommodate the debate we must have on the Chancellor’s Budget, and to allow the recess date therefore conveniently to fall on a Tuesday, thus letting the Prime Minister off his Prime Minister’s questions duties.

Stephen Mosley: Was the hon. Lady listening when the Leader of the House explained that this year we will be breaking up on a Tuesday twice out of six occasions? That is a ratio of one in three, and therefore a minority, so this is not a trend; it is completely the opposite in fact.

Angela Eagle: The hon. Gentleman should hear me out, because I have a few other things to say about the trends we on this side of the House have perceived. Perhaps when he has listened to me he might form an opinion, rather than having an opinion before he has heard what I have to say.
	Both last year and this year the Government decided to sit on a Friday and begin the recess on a Tuesday, and this year that means the Prime Minister will next have to appear at Prime Minister’s questions and justify the Budget to the House fully 28 days after the date of the Budget. Perhaps it takes him 28 days to plough through all the Budget documentation, but the rest of us have to react instantly, and so should he.
	Let me readily acknowledge that when the original sittings motion suggesting this arrangement was put to the House on 17 December last year, the Opposition did not vote against it, and before any Member on the Government Benches leaps up to point this out, I also acknowledge that six days earlier, on 11 December, the Chancellor had announced that the date of the 2013 Budget would be 20 March. I must confess that I was perhaps guilty of feeling a little too much pre-Christmas spirit towards the Government and might even have been lulled by the season into a false sense of security that they were not being Machiavellian with the parliamentary timetable. I now know I was wrong to be so generous to them.
	I often worry about the adversarial nature of our parliamentary system putting people off politics, so I considered the possibility that the observation I have made about our current Prime Minister’s strange aversion to the House sitting on Wednesdays might just be partisan criticism on my part.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Would it not be perverse of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to avoid Wednesday questions when he is so much better at them than the hon. Lady’s right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition?

Angela Eagle: With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, that is a matter of opinion, and he and I may disagree about the judgment he has just presented to the House.
	I wondered whether this strange aversion to Wednesdays might be randomly generated happenstance or unsupported by any evidence. I was even beginning to chide myself a little for developing such unworthy thoughts about Machiavelli or anybody else, so I decided to check the evidence. I looked back at the record to see how often the House has risen for recesses on Tuesdays, and it turns out that during the period when Tony Blair was Prime Minister the House rose on Tuesdays 22% of the time, and when my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) was Prime Minister the House rose on Tuesdays 29% of the time, but since 2010 while the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron) has been Prime Minister the House has risen on Tuesdays a whopping 58% of the time.
	These figures prove that this Prime Minister is categorically no heir to Blair in his desire to be answerable for the actions of his Government in this Chamber. They prove he truly has an aversion to Wednesdays and a reluctance to let the House sit on Wednesdays if he can possibly avoid it. What on earth can the Prime Minister be scared of?

Michael Ellis: Did not Tony Blair reduce the number of Prime Minister’s Question Times from twice a week to once a week?

Angela Eagle: The length was not reduced; as hon. Members may recall, Tony Blair put the two sets of 15 minutes together into one half an hour. The figures that I have just given the House are unaffected by the changes that were made to Prime Minister’s Question Time, because the half-hour, one-day-a-week session is common to all three figures. That point does not address the pattern of avoiding Wednesdays which the statistics demonstrate we are dealing with in this debate.

Andrew Lansley: I do not understand the point the shadow Leader of the House is making. She says that when the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) was Prime Minister the House rose for a recess on a Tuesday on 29% of occasions. She can see from the calendar that I published that the House is intended to rise twice on a Tuesday out of six occasions, which is 33.3%. Is the whole strength of her argument really the difference between 29% and 33.3%?

Angela Eagle: If one takes into account all the recesses since this Government have been in office, the figure goes up to 58%. That is a difference and it rather proves that this Prime Minister has a strange aversion to the House sitting on Wednesdays. That is what we are dealing with in our amendment.
	Why on earth can the Prime Minister be frightened of Wednesdays? Last year’s Budget was enough to put the frighteners on anyone, let’s face it. It certainly set the bar high in standards of incoherence and incompetence, which even our part-time Chancellor will find hard to match this year. Let us remember that we had the granny tax, the churches tax, the charities tax and the pasty tax. The Chancellor had been so busy swanning around Washington in search of President Obama’s coat tails that he had forgotten to pay enough attention to one of his day jobs.
	Last year’s Budget was unravelling even before the Chancellor had sat down. It was so disastrous that it spawned its own new word—omnishambles—which became
	the “Oxford English Dictionary” word of the year. There was open revolt against Budget measures on the Government Benches. Nine Tory MPs and four Liberal Democrats voted against the pasty tax, in defiance of their Whips. Sixteen Conservatives and one Liberal Democrat voted against the caravan tax, with two Liberal Democrat Ministers strangely missing the vote completely. No lesser person than Lord Ashcroft was moved to observe:
	“The main problem is not so much that people think that the Conservative Party is heading in the wrong direction, it is that they are not sure where it is heading. And that includes me.”

John Spellar: Does this not speak to a greater truth, which also affects the issue before us, given that the Budget date had already been announced prior to the motion being put to the Commons? If my hon. Friend has read analyses of how Budgets have traditionally been made up properly, under Labour and Conservative Governments, she will know that many of the proposals in the last Budget had been proposed a number of times before by the civil service and had been batted back. What we have with this Government—here is the relevance to this debate—is a failure of process: a failure to attend to detail and a complete failure to attend to proper parliamentary and governmental process.

Angela Eagle: I agree wholeheartedly with the points that my right hon. Friend has made. As a former Treasury Minister, I can attest to the fact that some of the more disastrous bits of last year’s omnishambles Budget had indeed been put up to Ministers for their consideration prior to their adoption last year and had been batted back for the nonsense that they were.
	Because of the Government’s cynical manipulation of the recess dates, it took 28 days after that botched Budget for the Prime Minister to find himself back at the Dispatch Box to account for it. By then we had also had the fuel strike scare and the jerry can scandal to add to the chaos. Understandably, he was so unnerved that, red-faced and angry, he started attacking his own side. The hon. Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell) was wholly unfairly ticked off for having a sense of humour failure by a rattled Prime Minister who was demonstrating to the House just how easily he seems to be able to channel his inner Flashman. The memory of this omnishambles is obviously still raw, Mr Speaker. According to samizdats emerging from the 1922 Committee, the Chancellor has admitted to Tory Back Benchers that last year’s Budget was a disaster. Why else would he have been seen nodding vigorously as he was being exhorted, in language so earthy that I cannot repeat it here, not to—how can I put this politely and stay in order—mess it up this time?
	Perhaps the Prime Minister’s reluctance to appear at the Dispatch box the day after the Budget debates to answer for his Chancellor’s omnishambles is an understandable human failing on his part, but it is not one in which this House should be assisting or that we should allow him to repeat this year. However, that is precisely what the motion will do unless our amendment is accepted. The Budget will be on 20 March and the Prime Minister is not due to appear at the Dispatch Box to answer questions until 17 April. Once more, that is 28 days after the Chancellor’s Budget statement.
	If the Prime Minister finds it impossible to appear before the House to answer questions on the Budget before 28 days have elapsed, he could do what all Prime
	Ministers in the past have done and let his deputy do it for him. After all, we are told that the Liberal Democrats are intimately involved in all of the decision making about the Budget. We know that they are so central to the Government’s inner core that they make up two of the “quad” who, we are told, make all the final decisions. They are so closely involved in Budget decisions that they leaked most of it in advance last year so that they could take credit for all of the nice bits and distance themselves from the nasty bits. The only thing left for the poor Chancellor to surprise us with was the granny tax, and that was all he had to take credit for. No one seemed to benefit—unless of course they happen to be a millionaire awaiting their huge tax cut this April while everyone else feels the pain.
	In the spirit of being a team player and recognising the Liberal Democrats’ acts of selfless sacrifice on tuition fees, why does the Leader of the House not just accept our amendment, change the sittings motion and let the Deputy Prime Minister step in and help out with Prime Minister’s questions straight after the Budget? Surely the Prime Minister trusts him to do a good job.

Peter Bone: The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech—unfortunately, she has made some political remarks, but parliamentarily it is a very good speech. However, I have not heard her move her amendment yet. Does she intend to do so?

Angela Eagle: Yes, we intend to press the amendment to a vote.
	Surely the Prime Minister cannot have taken to heart the content of last December’s leaked Liberal Democrat memo, which urged senior Liberal Democrats to spread the message that
	“The Conservatives can’t be trusted to build a fairer society”
	and to remind voters that the Tories only want to look “after the super rich”. I am sure, given those comments, that the Deputy Prime Minister would be welcomed to the Dispatch Box the day after the Budget to support all its content. Perhaps he might also be asked by the Tories on the Government Benches why the Liberal Democrats keep sending out press briefings criticising the Government’s tax policies just after the Chancellor has finished announcing them.
	Last December, for example, the Liberal Democrats were caught out saying:
	“The only tax cuts the Conservatives support are ones for the very rich. At the General Election, their priority was to cut inheritance tax for millionaires. In the Coalition, Liberal Democrats have blocked these plans.”
	After all, just this week the Business Secretary has expressed his
	“deep disappointment at the lack of capital investment in the economy”
	while declaring himself the shop steward of the newly formed “National Union of Ministers”, fighting cuts to his own departmental budget openly in any TV studio and newspaper that would have him. I can see why the Prime Minister might be reluctant to let his deputy fill in for him at the Dispatch Box given that level of loyalty, so perhaps he should just bite the bullet and do it himself.
	If our amendment were carried, all it would do is restore a status quo that has been long experienced in this Parliament: the Prime Minister comes to this House regularly to be held accountable during Prime Minister’s questions for the policy and the behaviour of his Government. That is even more vital after major Government announcements, such as Budgets. It cannot be acceptable that we are expected to put up with a month-long gap between the Budget and the next appearance by the Prime Minister to answer questions at that Dispatch Box.
	If the Government resist the amendment to the sittings motion, it will become emblematic of their wider disdain for parliamentary accountability and even for democracy. After all, they have had no democratic mandate for the economic policy that they have pursued since June 2010, because the Liberal Democrats fought the election espousing a completely different economic policy from the one that they now support. The Government have had no democratic mandate for their disastrous top-down reorganisation of the national health service. They explicitly ruled it out during the general election, but now they pursue it with the certainty of zealots and the competence of Mr Bean.

Sarah Newton: Would the hon. Lady remind me what democratic mandate Tony Blair had to take this country to war in Iraq?

Kevan Jones: A vote in the House.

Sarah Newton: That was the very same Prime Minister who did not even allow a debate in the House on a votable motion. It is preposterous for the hon. Lady to deny that from the Dispatch Box and say that our Prime Minister does not put himself before the House on a regular basis for it to scrutinise what this Government are doing.

Angela Eagle: I know that the hon. Lady was not a Member when there was a vote on Iraq, but there was a vote in this Parliament, and a very large majority for the action that was subsequently taken in Iraq.

Sarah Newton: Action, not war.

Angela Eagle: There was far more of a mandate. Indeed, the Conservative party, which was then in opposition, supported that.

Kevan Jones: Is it not also a fact that the motion was carried on the votes of Conservative Members, which they may conveniently have forgotten?

Angela Eagle: Yes, that is absolutely true. Perhaps in future the hon. Lady should check the record before she makes points as defective as that.

John Spellar: The hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) makes a point which I think needs to be on the record. She says that the House voted for action, not war. The hon. Lady, who is fairly new to the House, will not be aware of the fact—I am sure that my hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House is aware of it—that this country has never formally gone to war since 1939, but we have been involved in a considerable
	number of military actions. It is quite understandable that the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth, not having been around at the time and not having been here long, would not understand that difference.

Angela Eagle: My right hon. Friend is entirely correct.

Mark Pritchard: On the Iraq war, I am sure the hon. Lady knows that there is an application before the Backbench Business Committee for a debate on the 10th anniversary of the war. Will she support that application?

Angela Eagle: I wish the hon. Gentleman all good speed with his application to the Backbench Business Committee, but it is not for me from the Front Bench to dictate what the Committee should decide to do.
	The Government also had no mandate for the trebling of tuition fees, which they—

Mark Pritchard: For clarification, the application is not mine. My application is for a less contentious debate on Romanian and Bulgarian migration to the United Kingdom. The application for the debate on Iraq was made by the leader of the Green party, the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), but I think it is in the national interest. The debate would be in the interests of the Opposition and a cathartic exercise for them, and I hope the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) will support it.

Angela Eagle: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but we are awaiting the publication of the Chilcot report, which I am sure will occasion us plenty of opportunity to have a debate and consider the way these matters worked out.
	We know why the Prime Minister is running scared. He knows that his Chancellor’s economic plan is not working. His Back Benchers know that their Chancellor’s economic plan is not working. Little wonder, then, that our Prime Minister wants to hide away and hope that we will forget about it over a long Easter recess. He keeps organising these long Easter recesses for his, rather than for our, convenience. The only way to stop him getting away with it is to vote for our amendment to stop the Prime Minister evading scrutiny after the Budget for an entire month. I certainly hope that the House will do so.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Of course, many of us wish the House to sit at every possible opportunity, because it is the debating chamber of the nation and its sitting gives us an opportunity to represent our constituents and hold the Executive to account in a way that keeps them properly on their toes. When I read the amendment, I must confess that I was struck by the nobility of the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) in wishing to offer up the Leader of the Opposition as a sacrificial lamb. He is put out weekly and then resuscitated, only to be brought back again and laid on the Dispatch Box of slaughter before our great Prime Minister, who week in, week out—

Thomas Docherty: I had the pleasure of being in the hon. Gentleman’s company last night at Buckingham palace, where fizz was available. May I suggest that if he
	thought that the Prime Minister won earlier today, he might have had a glass or two too many?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because his intervention allows me to inform the House that I am observing my Lenten abstinence and, therefore, took great delight in nothing stronger than Her Majesty’s Sandringham apple juice.
	On occasions such as this, one’s mind always turns to cricket, because there is a great similarly between Prime Minister’s questions and cricket. The Leader of the Opposition has six questions, and those Members who are up on their cricket will know that there are six balls in an over. That takes us back to 1968, to the great occasion at Glamorgan when one Malcolm Nash came on to bowl. I see the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) as the Malcolm Nash of Prime Minister’s questions, but I see our Prime Minister as the Garfield Sobers. Malcolm Nash runs in to bowl and the Prime Minister smites the ball for six. The next ball goes over Big Ben. The next goes over the Victoria Tower. The fourth ball is in the Thames, and the fifth is at the London eye.

Thomas Docherty: As a member of the all-party group on cricket, I understand the hon. Gentleman’s metaphor. Surely the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be Geoffrey Boycott, because he simply runs his colleagues out?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: It is a great joy to have a Scotsman in the Chamber who is knowledgeable about cricket. It is a triumph of English civilisation spreading north and is extraordinarily welcome. Mr Geoffrey Boycott is one of the most successful cricketers of all time. If the Chancellor is like him, a man of noble dedication to his task, the only batsman to have averaged over 100 in a season twice in his career, one of the highest-scoring batsmen in the history of cricket, and that is what a socialist thinks of him, what then will a Conservative say of a man of such aplomb, ability and foresight?
	Let us get back to the issue of Wednesday and what I think is the Christian charity of the Leader of the House, who feels that it is unfair to put the Leader of the Opposition through the torment of Prime Minister’s questions on an additional unnecessary occasion and that it would be showing off to allow the Prime Minister to smite him to the boundary once again. Therefore, we will come back on a dutiful Friday, a proper working day, rather than one for doing other things. I cancelled my commitments with pleasure so that I could be in the House, not necessarily to speak, but for the pleasure of listening to others debate the Budget, enumerating the triumphs of Conservatism, the success of the proposals that will have been brought forward and the enthusiasm we will have for the way this Government are boldly, satisfactorily and rightly marching forward to get the economy back in shape after the horrific errors made by the socialists. I must therefore oppose the amendment.

Thomas Docherty: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that Tony Blair was a socialist?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: His party was socialist, his Government were socialist and his successor was a socialist; I think that there is a lot of socialist still left in the Labour party.
	We will have that Friday, a day of jubilee, to come in and praise the Government for what they have done and for their wisdom and foresight. We are being kindly and charitable—nice, really—to the Opposition by not inflicting upon them the terrible experience they must have every week. None the less, I must confess that I admire the nobility of the hon. Member for Wallasey in bringing forward her amendment. For the Labour party to take this on puts one in mind of the charge of the Light Brigade. How does it go?
	“Cannon to right of them,
	Cannon to left of them,
	Cannon behind them”

John Spellar: rose—

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will volley and thunder.

John Spellar: Does the hon. Gentleman not care about the employment prospects of the fact checkers for Channel 4 and various journals who are regularly employed every Wednesday, including today, when the Prime Minister claimed that the bedroom tax did not apply to those with disabled children? Does he not feel for them in that they will have less work to do because the Prime Minister—I would never accuse him in this Chamber of misrepresenting the position—does not understand his own policies?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I believe it is orderly, Mr Speaker, to say that the right hon. Gentleman is guilty of terminological inexactitude. The Prime Minister said nothing about a bedroom tax, for there is no bedroom tax The Prime Minister is somebody who deals in truth, right and justice, and therefore does not talk about things that do not exist.

Peter Bone: My hon. Friend has convinced me that the only thing properly to do if one wants to support the Prime Minister in allowing him to have another crack at the Opposition is to support the Opposition’s amendment.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am delighted that, as always, my hon. Friend has come up with a novel argument. I hope that it is approved of by Mrs Bone, although I would have thought that she would like to have him back for Easter by Holy Wednesday, which does seem a little late to be sitting.
	Let me remind the House of my admiration for the nobility of the Opposition in offering themselves up as sacrificial lambs. Perhaps it is appropriate, in the context of Holy Wednesday, for them to be thinking of sacrificial lambs. However, it is better to save them the embarrassment and humiliation of having to watch, and save the nation its pity at having to watch, the poor Leader of the Opposition being filleted by our noble, illustrious and great Prime Minister, who on every Wednesday comes forth and ensures that there is success, a spring in the step of Conservatives, and joy across the land.

John Spellar: This really is a most curious debate. We managed to tease out the information
	from the Leader of the House, slightly reluctantly on his part, that he seemed not to have been aware before he spoke that the Chancellor had announced the date of the Budget. He can rightly say, to some extent, that perhaps that should have meant that the motion would be opposed. Frankly, however, as I said to him from a sedentary position, it is the job of the Government business managers—the Leader of the House, the Chief Whip and their very able and extensive staffs—to look out for these things, let alone, perhaps, those who are in charge of the grid at No. 10, if anybody is. This is not just about the simple issue of not having a whole series of clashing announcements on one day; it is about the good management of business and the stress-testing of propositions before they see the light of day.

Peter Bone: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that none of these problems would arise if we had a House business committee? Then it would not just be a case of the Executive trying to force through such changes but of also having a committee to which every Back-Bench Member could make representations. Would that not be the answer?

John Spellar: In this context, I am not criticising the Executive for forcing things through but for not being on top of the job. Unfortunately, that is only too typical these days in a whole number of areas. There were several examples with the last Budget, where there were clearly issues that should never have got to the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Chief Secretary, or perhaps even other Ministers. They should have been knocked out long before by Treasury officials or special advisers.

Stephen Mosley: The right hon. Gentleman talks about people not being on top of the job. Does he admit that when this was voted through on 17 December last year the Opposition knew what the date of the Budget was going to be and made the decision to support it? It was you guys who were not on top of the job because you were not aware of what you were doing that day.

Thomas Docherty: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The hon. Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) referred to “you guys”. I was not aware that you were part of that decision, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman’s meaning was clear, but it was notably colloquial—obviously too colloquial for the advanced and refined taste of the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty).

John Spellar: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am sure that the hon. Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) will get the hang of this place after a while.
	Essentially, the Government determine the business of the House. It is absolutely right that that can be voted on, but it is the Government who work out the pattern of the parliamentary year—
	Debate interrupted (Standing Order No. 9(3)).

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES 2012-13

The Speaker put the deferred Questions (Standing Order No. 54(6))

Ministry of Justice

Resolved,
	That, for the year ending with 31 March 2013, for expenditure by the Ministry of Justice—
	(1) further resources, not exceeding £1,157,003,000, be authorised for use for current purposes as set out in HC 894,
	(2) the resources authorised for use for capital purposes be reduced by £19,950,000 as so set out, and
	(3) a further sum, not exceeding £385,095,000, be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.

Department for Communities and Local Government

Resolved,
	That, for the year ending with 31 March 2013, for expenditure by the Department for Communities and Local Government—
	(1) further resources, not exceeding £464,869,000, be authorised for use for current purposes as set out in HC 894,
	(2) the resources authorised for use for capital purposes be reduced by £1,212,893,000 as so set out, and
	(3) the sums authorised for issue out of the Consolidated Fund be reduced by £339,615,000 as so set out.

Department for Work and Pensions

Resolved,
	That, for the year ending with 31 March 2013, for expenditure by the Department for Work and Pensions—
	(1) further resources, not exceeding £507,034,000, be authorised for use for current purposes as set out in HC 894,
	(2) further resources, not exceeding £97,653,000, be authorised for use for capital purposes as so set out, and
	(3) a further sum, not exceeding £2,133,672,000, be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.

Department of Health

Resolved,
	That, for the year ending with 31 March 2013, for expenditure by the Department of Health—
	(1) further resources, not exceeding £1,244,626,000, be authorised for use for current purposes as set out in HC 894,
	(2) the resources authorised for use for capital purposes be reduced by £1,000 as so set out, and
	(3) the sums authorised for issue out of the Consolidated Fund be reduced by £472,479,000 as so set out.
	The Speaker then put the Questions on the outstanding Estimates (Standing Order No. 55).

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES 2012-13 (ARMY) VOTE A

Resolved,
	That, during the year ending with 31 March 2013, modifications in the maximum numbers in the Reserve Land Forces subject to additional duties commitments under section 25 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 set out in Supplementary Votes A 2012–13, HC 856, be authorised for the purposes of Parts 1 and 3 of that Act.—(Mr Evennett.)

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES 2012-13 (AIR) VOTE A

Resolved,
	That, during the year ending with 31 March 2013, modifications in the maximum numbers in the Reserve Air Forces set out in Supplementary Votes A 2012–13, HC 856, be authorised for the purposes of Part 1 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.—(Mr Evennett.)

ESTIMATES, 2013-14 (NAVY) VOTE A

Resolved,
	That, during the year ending with 31 March 2014, a number not exceeding 36,370 all ranks be maintained for Naval Service and that numbers in the Reserve Naval and Marines Forces be authorised for the purposes of Parts 1, 3, 4 and 5 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 up to the maximum numbers set out in Votes A 2013–14, HC 855.—(Mr Evennett.)

ESTIMATES, 2013-14 (ARMY) VOTE A

Resolved,
	That, during the year ending with 31 March 2014, a number not exceeding 117,970 all ranks be maintained for Army Service and that numbers in the Reserve Land Forces be authorised for the purposes of Parts 1, 3, 4 and 5 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 up to the maximum numbers set out in Votes A 2013–14, HC 855.—(Mr Evennett.)

ESTIMATES, 2013-14 (AIR) VOTE A

Resolved,
	That, during the year ending with 31 March 2014, a number not exceeding 39,200 all ranks be maintained for Air Force Service and that numbers in the Reserve Air Forces be authorised for the purposes of Parts 1, 3, 4 and 5 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 up to the maximum numbers set out in Votes A 2013–14, HC 855.—(Mr Evennett.)

ESTIMATES, EXCESSES, 2009-10 (AIR) VOTE A

Resolved,
	That, for the year ending with 31 March 2010, excesses in the numbers in the Reserve Air Forces be authorised for the purposes of Part 1of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 up to the revised maximum numbers set out in Excess Votes A, 2009–10, HC 992.—(Mr Evennett.)

ESTIMATES, EXCESSES, 2009-10

Resolved,
	That, for the year ending with 31 March 2010, resources, not exceeding £1,000, be authorised for use to make good excesses of certain resources for defence and civil services as set out in Late Statement of Excesses 2009-10, HC 896.—(Mr Evennett.)

ESTIMATES, EXCESSES, 2010-11 (AIR) VOTE A

Resolved,
	That, for the year ending with 31 March 2011, excesses in the numbers in the Reserve Air Forces be authorised for the purposes of Part 1 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 up to the revised maximum numbers set out in Excess Votes A, 2010–11, HC 992.—(Mr Evennett.)

ESTIMATES, EXCESSES, 2010-11

Resolved,
	That, for the year ending with 31 March 2011, resources, not exceeding £1,000, be authorised for use to make good excesses of certain resources for defence and civil services as set out in Late Statement of Excesses 2010-11, HC 896.—(Mr Evennett.)

ESTIMATES, EXCESSES, 2011-12 (AIR) VOTE A

Resolved,
	That, for the year ending with 31 March 2012, excesses in the numbers in the Reserve Air Forces be authorised for the purposes of Part 1of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 up to the revised maximum numbers set out in Excess Votes A, 2011–12, HC 992.—(Mr Evennett.)

ESTIMATES, EXCESSES, 2011-12

Resolved,
	That, for the year ending with 31 March 2012—
	(1) resources, not exceeding £62,700,000, be authorised to make good excesses for use for current purposes as set out in Statements of Excesses 2011-12, HC 896, HC 994 and HC 995,
	(2) resources, not exceeding £7,765,000, be authorised to make good excesses for use for capital purposes as set out in Statement of Excesses 2011-12, HC 896.—(Mr Evennett.)

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES 2012-13

Resolved,
	That, for the year ending with 31 March 2013—
	(1) resources authorised for current purposes be reduced by £2,398,590,000, in accordance with HC 894, HC 910, HC 971, HC 974 and HC 985,
	(2) resources authorised for capital purposes be reduced by £5,212,562,000, in accordance with HC 894, HC 910, HC 971, HC 974 and HC 985, and
	(3) the sums authorised for issue out of the Consolidated Fund be reduced by £3,939,090,000, in accordance with HC 894, HC 910, HC 971, HC 974 and HC 985.—(Mr Evennett.)

ESTIMATES, VOTE ON ACCOUNT, 2013-14

Resolved,
	That, for the year ending with 31 March 2014—
	(1) resources, not exceeding £216,006,686,000, be authorised, on account, for use for current purposes as set out in HC 895, HC 909, HC 926, HC 972, HC 973, and HC 986,
	(2) resources, not exceeding £21,552,454,000, be authorised, on account, for use for capital purposes as so set out, and
	(3) a sum, not exceeding £209,612,302,000, be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.—(Mr Evennett.)
	Ordered, That a Bill be brought in upon the foregoing Resolutions relating to Estimates, Late Excesses 2009-10 and 2010-11, Excesses 2011-12, Supplementary Estimates, 2012-13 and Estimates, 2013-14 (Vote on Account).
	That the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Danny Alexander, Sajid Javid, Mr David Gauke and Greg Clark bring in the Bill.

Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill

Presentation and First Reading
	Mr David Gauke accordingly presented a Bill to authorise the use of resources for the years ending with 31 March 2010, 31 March 2011, 31 March 2012, 31 March 2013 and 31 March 2014; to authorise the issue of sums out of the Consolidated Fund for the years ending with 31 March 2013 and 31 March 2014; and to appropriate the supply authorised by this Act for the years ending with 31 March 2010, 31 March 2011, 31 March 2012 and 31 March 2013.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed (Bill 146).

Business of the House

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 15),
	That, at this day’s sitting, the Sittings of the House (22 March) Motion, in the name of Mr Andrew Lansley, may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) will not apply.—(Mr Evennett.)
	The House divided:
	Ayes 265, Noes 84.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Question again proposed,
	That this House shall sit on Friday 22 March.

John Spellar: I am pleased to continue the argument. I slightly regret the absence of the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), who seemed to want to intervene. Maybe he has been nobbled in the meantime.
	As you will recall, Mr Speaker, before we voted I made it clear, in answer to the hon. Member for City of Chester, that the Government are responsible for their own parliamentary business. With their considerable resource, they should be able to take account of the many factors required for a proper parliamentary timetable, not least with the current absence of legislation. Because
	they have messed up in other areas of the legislative programme, they are not actually bursting with items to be discussed.

Philip Hollobone: I am greatly enjoying the right hon. Gentleman’s speech, but does he not agree with me that the Government have promised the House that they will introduce a House business committee in 2013 to avoid these circumstances arising, and that were the committee established, these unfortunate proceedings could be avoided?

John Spellar: It is hugely tempting to follow the hon. Gentleman down that path, because it reveals a degree of misunderstanding of how the Westminster parliamentary system works. If the committee he mentions—this will be a long debate when we get to that—is in control of the parliamentary timetable, it will effectively become the Government, because it will control Parliament. The committee might deal with a particular part of the parliamentary timetable, just as the Backbench Business Committee does. However, responsibility for the entire parliamentary timetable—and there is nothing more intrinsic to the maintenance of government than supply and this expression, “Through the Budget”—is fundamentally the role of the Queen’s Government, as determined on a daily basis by the maintenance of a parliamentary majority.

Philip Hollobone: The right hon. Gentleman might be right in some respects, but were this business of the house committee to be established, it might well have on it a Government majority and be able to determine non-legislative time, even if it could not determine legislative time. Given that PMQs on Wednesday is non-legislative, I would have thought that the committee would be able to determine that the House sit on a Wednesday.

John Spellar: But it is a hugely important part of holding the Government to account. It clearly has a considerable impact on the Prime Minister, given his desire to avoid it. If one reads the memoirs of a number of Prime Ministers, not just of recent vintage—

Michael Ellis: Tony Blair.

John Spellar: Not just of recent vintage, I said. I know the hon. Gentleman is a new Member who thinks that history started with Tony Blair’s election. I know this belief is common within the Conservative party, but actually we did have Prime Ministers—both Labour and Conservative alike—before that. I was actually thinking of Harold Macmillan, but the hon. Gentleman was probably in short trousers when he was Prime Minister.

Kevan Jones: I am interested in the line that my right hon. Friend is taking, but actually we are talking here not about the procedures of the House, but about the incompetence of the Government in handling the timetable. They have tabled this motion tonight because they did not realise that they needed the extra Friday to fit in the four days of debate on the Budget.

John Spellar: My hon. Friend rightly draws me back to the immediate topic, tempting, interesting and attractive though it is to discuss the broader issues of parliamentary sovereignty and procedure. He is right that most of the
	factors, including the date of the Budget, were well known when the motion was laid. The number of days that we traditionally take for the Budget debate was known, as too was the date of Easter. In fact, the date of Easter could have been known several decades, if not centuries, ago. The procedure for calculating Easter was decided at the Council of Nicaea in 325. At that time, they could probably have calculated when this Easter would be.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Was it not St Wilfrid and the Synod of Whitby that settled the date of Easter in England?

John Spellar: The date of Easter is the first Sunday after the full moon following the March equinox. I thought the hon. Gentleman was going to ask me whether this was under the Julian or Gregorian calendar, but he did not.

Thomas Docherty: My right hon. Friend will be aware that we are a United Kingdom Parliament. I do not know whether he is aware, but for a long time Scotland had a different Easter.

John Spellar: Several areas did. Of course, we would be straying into history if we noted that the last time we changed the calendar and the method of calculation, it did not work out too well and London got substantially burnt down. “Give us back our 11 days”, was the cry of the London workers.

Kevan Jones: My right hon. Friend is showing a detailed knowledge about how Easter is calculated. Was he actually at one of these meetings when it was decided?

John Spellar: I said 325, not 7.24.
	It is absolutely right that we need a full debate on the Budget. I therefore question why the Budget needs to be on a Wednesday—I hope the Leader of the House will intervene—if we wish to fit in those four days and, quite rightly, have the Back-Bench pre-recess debate. Why not have the Budget on a Tuesday and the debate on the following days? That would work perfectly well, although I do think—mention has been made of staff who work here, and so on—that having recesses in the middle of the week rather than in full blocks can affect many people, particularly those who are trying to adjust to have holidays with family or, frankly, those without children who are trying to avoid going on holiday at the same time as those with family. Not much thought seems to have been given to how these things are organised—or, indeed, to parliamentary delegations. These partial weeks do not seem to be a particularly good idea.

Philip Hollobone: rose—

Philip Davies: rose—

John Spellar: I will give way to the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), seeing as he has not intervened yet, and come back to the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone).

Philip Davies: The right hon. Gentleman prompts me with his talk about the Budget perhaps being on a Tuesday. For many years it was on a Tuesday, but it was changed to a Wednesday. That was before my time in the House, so I wonder whether he could tell me when
	the Budget was changed to Wednesday from Tuesday in the first place. Did it have anything to do with Tony Blair changing Prime Minister’s questions to Wednesday so that he could not be questioned about the unravelling of his Chancellor’s Budget the day after he had delivered it? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could help us.

John Spellar: I find it strange that the hon. Gentleman should talk about unravelling Budgets, given the experience of the last Budget—it was never fully ravelled, let alone unravelled. As I recall, he played some part in helping to unravel that Budget. We are happy and pleased that he took such a principled position. [Interruption.] Fortunately his Whip is in conversation with someone else and will not have noticed.
	The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I tried to check how far back Budgets were changed from Tuesday to Wednesday. It is some way back, although I do not know whether it was anything to do with the bank rate or whatever. It is an interesting subject; unfortunately, I did not have time to research it. However, when Budgets were on a Wednesday, with PMQs on Tuesdays and Thursdays, that would have enabled questions to be asked of the Prime Minister. It would be perfectly proper—I would have thought it would be extremely helpful for the public debate—if the Budget was on a Tuesday and then the Prime Minister answered on the Wednesday. However, that is slightly separate; we would be able to fit in that time scale. What all this shows, yet again, is an inattention to detail and organising the business of the House.

Thomas Docherty: My right hon. Friend is a distinguished and long-serving parliamentarian. Can he recall whether it was custom and practice under the Labour Government that if the Budget was on a Wednesday, Prime Minister’s questions were sooner than four weeks later? Is that not one of the big problems we have with the proposal before us this evening?

John Spellar: It is very much—this ties in with when Easter is. It would be much better not to have such substantial gaps. Given the Prime Minister’s experience of trying to answer questions about the bedroom tax and his inability to answer the questions or, even more fundamentally, show an understanding of his own legislation, that is fairly worrying.
	Let me turn to the question of Fridays. I am slightly surprised by the Leader of the House’s comments—as though Friday and Wednesday were comparable in terms of the constituency pattern. Members of Parliament often establish a pattern with their local organisations—schools, charities and businesses—that ties in with having their advice bureaus on a Friday. Members will ensure that they have a full programme during the day on a Friday and, often, an advice bureau in the evening. It might be all right for Members who only have to nip up the road to St Albans if Parliament sits until 2.30 pm, but for those who have to go further afield, getting back to undertake their advice bureaus becomes a significant problem. I suspect that most Members will have publicised when and where their advice bureaus will be at least six months in advance; many will have done it a year in advance. Indeed, they will have put up posters around their constituencies to advertise them, because they had not anticipated that the Friday under discussion would be a sitting day in the Commons.
	Surprisingly, the Leader of the House has said that Members can speak on other days, but that is not how things work. Usually, under a very helpful Speaker, there is a bit of flexibility with regard to Budget debates, but the reality is that particular issues are debated on particular days. Members therefore need to know when subjects in which they are interested will be the prime focus of debate.
	The Leader of the House has also said that the Government do not intend to make statements, but if he does some research, he will find that statements have been made on Fridays in the past. That would make the situation even more difficult for certain Members.

Philip Davies: The point is that it is up to the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members to decide where they want to be on the Friday under discussion. If he decides that it is more important for him to turn up at the advice surgery that he has advertised six months in advance, there is nothing to prevent him from doing so, even if the proposed debate takes place. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman already does that during the House’s sitting Fridays for private Members’ Bills. He did not want to prevent the Opposition from calling for a recall of Parliament when the riots were taking place, but Members may have arranged to do other things during that summer recess.

John Spellar: I am not entirely sure that I follow the hon. Gentleman’s train of thought. He is right to say that debates on private Members’ Bills occur on Fridays, but Members know about them for a long time in advance. They can, therefore, set their constituency calendar some distance ahead and say, with assurance, “This is a non-sitting Friday, so there won’t be a Bill that’s of interest to my constituents and I can make arrangements.” That seems perfectly sensible. My point is that all of those elements were known and we find it slightly strange that, initially, the Leader of the House, at fairly short notice, tried to spring this change on the Commons. Fortunately that was spotted, so we are having a proper debate and exploring the issues.
	It is becoming clearer that there are two fundamental issues, the first of which is the steady disorganisation of parliamentary business and the Order Paper. For example, there are increasing incidents of the House of Lords and the House of Commons not sitting during the same weeks. In some cases, that causes considerable discontinuity for Bills moving between the two Houses.

Andrew Lansley: Before the right hon. Gentleman concludes his remarks—[Interruption.] We can be hopeful. If he looks at the motion, he will see that it is for the House to sit on 22 March. It does not amend the resolution of 17 December. It is the amendment that seeks to amend the resolution, the point of which was to establish the framework of recess dates, not to provide for which day, including Fridays, the House would sit. It would always have been necessary for us to come back to the question of a Friday sitting if that was the best solution. There was nothing defective about the resolution on 17 December.

John Spellar: I fully understand that when business is announced, it is always with the caveat that it is subject to the progress of Government business. As far as I am aware, no proposition has been advanced that this change is necessitated by the progress, or lack of it, of Government business.
	If, for example, the Government had continued with their legislation on the reform of the upper House, but without a programme motion, that business might have taken up a considerable amount of time over the past few months. The Government might then have said that they had other issues that needed to be dealt with, that there had been insufficient progress on Government business at that point, and that they therefore needed an extra day. That would have been understandable, but this proposal is not of that order. A number of elements were involved, all of which were known, and the Government have mishandled it.
	I mentioned the fact that the Lords and the Commons often meet in separate weeks. Many Members of Parliament are involved in groupings, organisations and even some formal bodies that go across both Houses, and it can be very difficult for people who organise events here, often in connection with extremely worthy causes and important issues, who are hoping to draw an audience of Members of both Houses. Similarly, parliamentary delegations from other countries often come here and want to meet up with fellow parliamentarians. The Inter-Parliamentary Union and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, for example, are fully integrated between the House of Lords and the House of Commons, and peers and Members of the Commons are involved in them, but their events become much more difficult for them to attend because of the disconnection of the parliamentary timetable.
	All those examples provide an indication that the Government felt that running Parliament was easy. They did not understand the dynamic of the Commons, in particular, and of Parliament in general. They did not understand the rhythm of the place. The change to the timing of the Queen’s Speech, for example, has had an impact. It has gradually worked its way through, but there is still some disconnect there.
	The Government have introduced changes without really understanding how Parliament works, and this motion is another symptom of that. It should therefore quite properly be dealt with by the amendment, which will enable Members of Parliament to undertake their constituency activities, and enable the Prime Minister to do what he is trying to avoid doing, week after week—namely, to turn up here and answer to the Commons and to the country.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. Has the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) concluded his oration?

John Spellar: indicated assent.

Mr Speaker: He has. I should not sound, or look, so surprised.

Philip Hollobone: I rise to support the amendment, because in my view the House should sit on a Wednesday in preference to a Friday. I am second to none in my admiration of the skills of the Leader of the House. He is a politician of legend throughout Cambridgeshire. He has had the good grace to visit Kettering general hospital in the past, and he is
	a politician without equal in his knowledge of this country’s health service. I am thus second to none in admiring his political skills, but I get the impression that he is feeling his way gently into his present position, and I feel that he has misjudged this element of his portfolio.
	I give him 10 out of 10 for setting out the parliamentary timetable well in advance. I really think he has done his very best to inform the House and the House authorities about when the Chamber should be sitting, but there has been a miscalculation over the Budget. I do not know whose responsibility that is. I doubt that it is the responsibility of anyone in the Leader of the House’s office. I expect that the guilty suspect probably works somewhere in No. 11 and has not communicated the dates far enough in advance to the Leader of the House. We are therefore where we are tonight.
	We are debating this matter at gone 7.30 on a Wednesday evening because the House has voted for the debate to continue until any hour. If any Members were keen to get away early this evening but voted for that motion, they would have only themselves to blame.

Peter Bone: My hon. Friend makes a fundamental point. Hundreds of Members voted for the resolution, so it is quite clear, at least on the Government Benches, that they want this debate to continue until any hour so that everyone can have a chance to speak.

Philip Hollobone: As always, my hon. Friend is right. In both the last Parliament and the present one, he and I have ploughed quite a lonely furrow on the issue of the House rising on a Wednesday.

Thomas Docherty: I do not wish to detract from what the hon. Gentleman says, but many other colleagues on the Government Benches—the hon. Members for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) and for Shipley (Philip Davies)—have also been parliamentary champions. Is that not correct?

Philip Hollobone: The hon. Gentleman mentions two parliamentary colleagues whom we all hold in extremely high esteem. He is quite right that they have been parliamentary champions in many respects. I have to say, however, that I am rather cross with my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg)this evening, as he made an excellent speech but drew the wrong conclusions from his remarks.
	If my constituents—and, I suspect, those of the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty)—ever tune in to watch Parliament, they do so on two occasions: on a Wednesday at 12 o’clock to watch Prime Minister’s questions or to watch the Budget. The Opposition amendment basically conflates those two pivotal parliamentary events in the parliamentary year. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and I, in ploughing our lonely furrow and arguing that the House should rise on a Wednesday in the last Parliament, perhaps attempted the impossible in looking at the issue through the prism not of party politics but of Back-Bench opinion without any political colour applied to it. Although I welcome the amendment from Her Majesty’s official Opposition, I have to say that they have some cheek when it comes to the House rising on a Tuesday, as they were as guilty when they
	were in charge as are the present Government now. I would welcome an intervention by the official Opposition Front-Bench team to give us a commitment that if they ever return to office, they will pledge that the House will only ever rise on a Wednesday. I notice no stirrings on the Opposition Front Bench, which is hugely disappointing.
	If my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough and I were, heaven forfend, ever to be in charge of these things, one of our first priorities would be—

David Nuttall: Does my hon. Friend think that once the House business committee is introduced, there may well be an opportunity for him to be in charge of these matters?

Philip Hollobone: Indeed. I do not want to be ruled out of order for being too hypothetical, but if there were a House business committee, I would hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) would be a member of it, if not its Chair; and if my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough and I were in government, one of our first priorities would be to set up that Committee and for my hon. Friend to be ennobled as its Chair. If we were in charge of these matters, we would put in place the necessary regulations for the House to rise always on a Wednesday.

Nigel Dodds: In the event that the Business of the House Committee were set up, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be important to have representatives of the smaller parties on it so that it became totally inclusive?

Philip Hollobone: Indeed, and I would be in favour of regulations that gave a disproportionate share to the Democratic Unionist party because it talks disproportionate good sense on so many issues.

Thomas Docherty: I am listening attentively to what the hon. Gentleman is saying about the notion of guaranteeing that the House will always rise on a Wednesday. As he is not a Liberal Democrat, I think that he is probably true to his word, but surely there will be occasions—before Christmas or Easter, for instance—when it will not be practical for that to happen. The hon. Gentleman would probably accept that if Christmas day fell on a Friday, it might be appropriate for the House to rise on a Monday or a Tuesday.

Philip Hollobone: I follow the hon. Gentleman’s train of thought, but I do not think that those circumstances would arise. I think that there would always be a convenient Wednesday before the dates that he has mentioned.

Thomas Docherty: That is an interesting argument, but there would then be the danger of a long gap if the House rose on the Friday before Christmas, perhaps on 17 or 18 December, and did not reconvene until, say, 6 January. Surely the hon. Gentleman accepts that that would be an unsatisfactory arrangement.

Philip Hollobone: Possibly, but I think that the purpose of tonight’s debate is to try to avoid the long gap that has been identified by Her Majesty’s official Opposition. That brings me back to the point about the conflation of the two events, Prime Minister’s Question Time and the Budget. When my constituents tune into the
	parliamentary channel on those two occasions, they do so because they are interested in what Members are saying in this place. They are particularly interested in what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to say about the Budget, and in what the Prime Minister has to say about the Budget a week later.

Philip Davies: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that his constituents are not interested in what is said in the House on Fridays? If he were suggesting that, my hon. Friends the Members for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) and for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) and I would be extremely disappointed.

Philip Hollobone: I have done my best to apprise my constituents of the value of tuning into the parliamentary channel on one of the 13 sitting Fridays, and to lead by example by watching my hon. Friend from my room, even if I am not in the Chamber myself, and listening to his words of wisdom on so many issues. I am afraid that the message is not getting through to my constituents yet, but I will keep on trying.
	My constituents do, however, want to watch Prime Minister’s Question Time on Wednesdays, and the problem with the motion as it stands is that they will be denied the opportunity to hear the Prime Minister being questioned on the Budget a week after it has been announced.
	Let me attempt the near impossible and not view this issue through a party political prism. I think that my constituents, whichever party they vote for—and whether they vote for any party or none at all—want to hear what the Prime Minister has to say about the important issues of the day before the House rises for a long recess, and that, on any level, that is not an unreasonable proposition. I think that the Prime Minister himself would be keen to do that. What I am questioning is the advice that the Prime Minister is being given in this respect. As my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset observed, the Prime Minister does extremely well. Indeed, most Prime Ministers do well at Prime Minister’s Question Time. It is not a level playing field: the balance of advantage lies with the Prime Minister of the day. I think that the Prime Minister would be up for it, but I think that he is being badly advised.
	I also think that the timetable proposed by the Leader of the House does a discourtesy to the House. That is to do with private Members’ Bills. Half a dozen Members have tabled important Bills for debate on 22 March, which have been listed on the Order Paper for the whole House to see for many, many weeks. Three of them have been tabled by the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife. Also tabled for that day are the Gift Vouchers and Insolvency Bill, the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (Amendment) Bill, and—perhaps most important of all—the Charities Act 2011 (Amendment) Bill, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), which was given a Second Reading by one of the largest majorities given to any private Member's Bill in the history of the House.

Peter Bone: I would vote for the Government motion if the Leader of the House assured me that if the Budget debate finished early on that day, the business listed for
	the day could then be proceeded with and include the private Members’ Bills. Would my hon. Friend support that proposition?

Philip Hollobone: I certainly feel the Government should give some ground on this issue, just out of generosity to the Members I have mentioned in the course of my remarks, because those Bills would be extremely worthy legislation, and given that the parliamentary timetable is not exactly chock-a-block at present, I think there is some room for manoeuvre for the Leader of the House.
	My main contention, however, is that Wednesday is, rightly or wrongly, in many respects the most important day of the parliamentary week. I think it is a great shame that following the Budget—one of the pivotal events of the parliamentary year—the House and the country are to be denied the opportunity of holding the Prime Minister to account for the contents of that Budget a week after it has been delivered. Our parliamentary democracy is eroded as a result. I will support the Opposition amendment tonight, and I hope the Leader of the House takes my remarks in the spirit in which they are offered.

David Nuttall: I take a slightly different view. Considering what has happened with past Budgets, does my hon. Friend agree that a passage of four weeks before the Prime Minister is questioned on the Budget would give Members an opportunity to digest all the various opinions about that Budget and perhaps therefore ask more incisive questions than would be possible if they asked them immediately afterwards?

Philip Hollobone: As always, my hon. Friend makes a very good point, but those Members who spend that month going over the Budget papers in the way he suggests will have the opportunity to ask the Prime Minister about them at the first Prime Minister’s questions when the House returns, but there will be other Members who will want rather swifter answers on behalf of their constituents, within a week of the Budget. The timetable currently proposed by the Leader of the House denies them that opportunity.

Thomas Docherty: I will not speak for long, Mr Speaker, as I am sure that you, like many other Members, are keen to hear Fatboy Slim, who is on the Terrace this evening. I know that is why so many Members are present. Some of us remember Fatboy Slim from The Housemartins. For the benefit of the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), The Housemartins were a popular beat combo from the ’80s—the 1980s.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: What on earth is a beach combo?

Thomas Docherty: Perhaps my broad Scottish accent is to blame, but I said beat combo. The hon. Gentleman is, of course, very familiar with a Fife accent. We had the pleasure of his company in central Fife in 1997. He mentioned cricket earlier, and was slightly surprised that cricket is played in Scotland. Dunfermline Knights are a very good cricket team. I am sure he will recall
	that central Fife, which is now ably represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes (Lindsay Roy), has also got a useful local cricket club. Perhaps we could arrange a visit.
	First, may I commend the Leader of the House on the Government’s relatively early U-turn and the fact that we are having this debate early in the month? Some other U-turns have tended to come much closer to the date. I also want to pick up on the valid point made about Cambridgeshire’s finest parliamentarian. I think the Leader of the House has made a pretty good start to his tenure in his current distinguished and important role. I was going to suggest he was probably going to be the finest Cambridgeshire parliamentarian since Cromwell. I am conscious that we have colleagues here from across the water who will tempt me into debating Oliver Cromwell. Whatever his faults, Oliver Cromwell was always a great believer in the rights of Parliament to hold the—

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Oliver Cromwell used his troops to stop Members voting the wrong way in a Division—even the Whips do not try that one.

Mr Speaker: Order. These exchanges are most entertaining but they are somewhat wide of the mark. I cannot encourage the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) to dilate any further on the matter of Cromwell. He must dilate, if he has to dilate, on the terms of the matter before us, which I feel sure he will now do.

Thomas Docherty: I am grateful for that, Mr Speaker; of course, I never require any encouragement to do something.
	I have the privilege of serving on both the Administration Committee and the Procedure Committee, and it is with those hats on that I wish to focus the majority of my remarks. Nobody has been a greater champion of parliamentary outreach than you, Mr Speaker. I think that the House would agree that in your time in the Chair you have done a vast amount to encourage Parliament to reach out, to open its doors and to do more to get the public in to see Parliament in action. The Leader of the House should be careful about what he wishes for in his motion. I am sure that he will have the answers to the following questions to hand, because he is an astute Minister. Will he clarify what discussions his office has had with the indomitable Mrs Aileen Walker who, as you know, Mr Speaker, is in charge of the tour office? I have the pleasure of serving on the Administration Committee with my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). You will know, Mr Speaker, that our tours are constantly over-subscribed. Will the Leader of the House clarify how many members of the public—how many taxpayers—who have booked travel well in advance to come down on the Friday to see Parliament in all its fine glory will not now have an opportunity to walk here on the Floor of the House of Commons because the Leader of the House wishes to take away that very valuable part of our democratic process? I hope that he has the figures to hand. I know that he is deep in conversation with one of his parliamentary colleagues, but I am sure he will be able to respond with those figures.
	We also have to address the important issue of the staff of the House. Again, you have been a champion of looking after them, Mr Speaker. Has the Leader of the House had discussions with the Clerk of the House and with the trade unions about the disruption that will be caused to their plans? It is fair to say that our staff work incredibly hard, particularly those in Hansard, who do so much to clean up the expression of our thoughts. Has the Leader of the House made sure that they are not going to be unduly inconvenienced by having to come in on that Friday? He is clearly deep in thought about how he responds on that point.
	On the issue of the Procedure Committee, the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) raised a valid point about the sitting Fridays. I will not be tempted into explaining the contents of private Members’ Bills, but at this afternoon’s Procedure Committee sitting we had the Clerk Assistant, Mr David Natzler, as well as Miss Kate Emms and Mr Simon Patrick, and we were asking the Clerks what happens to those private Members’ Bills. As I understand it—you will correct me if my understanding is at all inaccurate, Mr Speaker—without the Leader of the House’s consent, those Bills cannot be placed on the Order Paper for the Friday. That would look extraordinarily confusing to people outside Parliament; they would see the Bills on the Friday but those Bills would not be able to be taken. So will the Leader of the House guarantee the House today that, as the hon. Member for Kettering proposed, if, for whatever reason, Members on either side finished early in the Budget debate on the Friday, the six Bills we have at the moment—I suspect, depending on the Leader of the House’s answer, that the number may grow—will be placed on as orders so that they can be considered? That is an important issue to clear up before we decide how to vote in this debate.

Peter Bone: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Thomas Docherty: Of course I will.

Mr Speaker: Order. I follow the logic and development of the argument made by the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty), but I counsel him against pursuing the point about the treatment of private Members’ Bills any further. I politely suggest that the question of whether the House should sit on the relevant Friday stands as it is and that the intention is for the Budget debate to be conducted. The question of what would or would not be the treatment of private Members’ Bills does not arise, as the proposition is either that the House sits on that day to consider the matters in the Budget or that it does not sit on that day. I know that he would not want to refer to a diversionary matter. He has made his reference and I am sure that he is now moving on in the development of his argument.

Thomas Docherty: As ever, Mr Speaker, I know exactly where I am heading and I think I have placed my marker down on that point.
	The Friday after the Budget, as colleagues on both sides of the House have mentioned, is normally a day for visiting our constituencies and for going to see our loved ones, our staff and our constituents. Over the past couple of years, I have attended a post-Budget seminar organised by a local accountancy firm, Thomson Cooper.
	It is always hugely informative and I am sure that many other colleagues take part in similar events on the Friday. I find Mr Andrew Croxford’s presentation extremely enlightening and often come back with nuggets of information that I am able to use in the following week’s Budget debates. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, judging from last year’s performance, could probably benefit from finding an accountancy firm in Cheshire that could do a similar exercise for him.
	As a good parliamentarian, I will make every effort to be in the Chamber on the Friday to take part in the debate and I will therefore have the opportunity to take part in the post-Budget analysis. As my hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House has pointed out, it will perhaps benefit everyone, including the Chancellor.

Philip Davies: Although I was persuaded by the case being made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), I am less persuaded by the case that the hon. Gentleman is making. These are the kind of decisions that people have to make. The hon. Gentleman does not have to be in the Chamber for the Budget debate on the Friday. If he has a better date somewhere else, he can make the decision to be somewhere else. The same applies when Parliament is recalled during recess, as people might well have things organised and they then have to make the choice about which is most important. Surely the same applies in this case.

Thomas Docherty: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He and I have shared quite a few Fridays over the past year and I must attest that the debates are extremely good. In fact, I would suggest that the quality of debate on Fridays is often of a higher standard than that of some of the other debates we have had in the past year.
	The key point is that the Government announced the Friday sitting dates as long ago as last May. Some reference has been made to the fact that this motion was tabled in December, but the sitting Fridays were set out 10 months ago. At that point, the Leader of the House’s predecessor did not say that this Friday would be coming up. A number of colleagues will have made constituency plans and will have engagements that it will be difficult for them to break. For those who come from Belfast and elsewhere, travelling back to their constituencies on a Friday afternoon can be quite challenging. Anyone who has been to City airport or Heathrow knows how busy they can be. The fact is that the House will be sitting until 2.30 pm, and if our constituencies are outside the M25, it will become difficult to engage at all with our constituents on that Friday.
	I also disagree with the logic of the Leader of the House when he states that the dates are published and cannot be changed. I am not yet aware that the Government have announced the date for the Queen’s Speech or for Prorogation. Someone who was not a parliamentarian or a knowledgeable member of the public might think, looking at the calendar, that once the House came back on 15 April it would sit right through until the recess on 21 May. I am probably not giving anything away if I say that we expect this Session to finish at the end of April, and there will then be a recess. The logic that the Leader of the House seems to have applied—that because dates have been published, those dates are fixed—falls when it is subjected to scrutiny.
	The Leader of the House also referred to the fact that the Budget date was set for March in December. Given the Chancellor’s record on U-turns, we on the Opposition Benches were not entirely convinced that that would hold water; of course, the autumn statement took place in December. I know, Mr Speaker, that Buckinghamshire is a wonderful, delightful county and that every day must feel like a summer’s day in Buckinghamshire, but in Dunfermline and West Fife it is probably fair to say that 5 December certainly feels like we are into winter, rather than autumn. The Leader of the House should not labour the argument that the date was set and fixed several months ago. Perhaps he should reflect that the Chancellor would have more credibility on these dates if he once in a while stuck to what he said he was going to do.
	A valid point was made about the House business committee. May I gently correct some of the assumptions made by Government Members? My understanding, having read the Wright report, is that the chair of the House business committee would be the Leader of the House. There is a fair possibility that the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) may receive a promotion in the near future, and he may become the Leader of the House, but my understanding is that he would have to be the Leader of the House in order to chair the House business committee.

Mr Speaker: Order. I seek to be helpful to the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty). I say to him in that regard two things. First, those are speculative matters. They are not matters set in concrete, and there is potential for all sorts of different views. Secondly, if it is of interest to the hon. Gentleman, who is a keen if not anorakish student of parliamentary matters, I can advise him that I myself made a lengthy speech on this subject at the university of Hull in February last year, but I do not encourage him to seek to emulate the length of my oration on this occasion.

Thomas Docherty: May I humbly suggest, Mr Speaker, that you place a copy of that speech in the Library? I am sure all Members would benefit from an opportunity to share your wisdom and your thoughts on the matter. Perhaps the Leader of the House would like to update the House as to when he will be making his announcement on the House business committee. I will not press the matter any further, beyond saying that we all look forward to his thoughts on that issue in due course.
	A valid point was raised about the role of the Prime Minister in relation to the Budget. I confess that it has been a while since I have been invited to Downing street. I am sure I am on the guest list for the current temporary occupant’s next supper club, but I have been led to believe that it says on the plaque on the door, “First Lord of the Treasury”. I am not an eminent parliamentarian like you, Mr Speaker, but I understand that the First Lord of the Treasury is notionally in charge of the Treasury, so it is not unreasonable to expect the First Lord of the Treasury, in his capacity as Prime Minister, to be able to answer some basic questions in the week after the Budget.
	I stand to be corrected by eminent parliamentarians such as yourself, Mr Speaker, but from my brief research I can discover only one occasion in the past 15 years
	when a Prime Minister did not take questions within a week or so of the Budget. From the evidence of the past two years, one might think that the Prime Minister did not do detail and did not have a full grip of the answers that he might need to give to questions from Members on both sides of the House. I accept that the Prime Minister needs some “chillaxing” time. I understand that there is an updated version of Fruit Ninja available for the iPad. For the benefit of the hon. Member for North East Somerset, the iPad is a modern piece of technology favoured by many distinguished parliamentarians and is worth investigating.
	However, if the Prime Minister did find that he had other engagements, he is of course entitled to delegate. The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) has been trying for some time, and I think with some success, to find out who is supposed to deputise for the Prime Minister. Some might suggest that it is the Deputy Prime Minister—perhaps the clue is in the title. To the best of my knowledge, the Deputy Prime Minister has been let loose at the Dispatch Box for Prime Minister’s questions on only two or three occasions—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), who is far more knowledgeable than I am, confirms that that has happened on only two occasions.
	Perhaps the Leader of the House can confirm whether that is because the Prime Minister does not think that the Deputy Prime Minister is up to the job, or is it because, after the Eastleigh by-election result, he is concerned that the Deputy Prime Minister—I will try to keep a straight face—might outshine him? Is the Prime Minister concerned that the two parties might contradict each other, as we saw on the first occasion, when the Prime Minister’s press office had to clarify several of the Deputy Prime Minister’s remarks? Of course, on one occasion when the Prime Minister was unavailable he got the Foreign Secretary to stand in for him.
	It would be helpful if the Leader of the House confirmed whether the Prime Minister is available on the Wednesday after the Budget. Is he on important Government business? Is he intending to “chillax”? Is he planning to visit any of the constituencies? [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) asks a valid question: is he planning to visit a food bank? It would be a useful opportunity if he visited a food bank and spoke to some constituents.
	After the Prime Minister’s performance today I understand why the Leader of the House is so admirably trying to defend the indefensible. It is quite clear that, despite the soft drinks proffered last night, my right hon. Friend the Leader of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition wiped the floor with the Prime Minister. For that reason, I understand why the Leader of the House is reluctant for the Prime Minister to man up and come to the Chamber to face up to his decisions.

Peter Bone: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty). I do not agree with all the comments he made, but the gist of his speech was very good. I rise to support the amendment. Were I sitting on the Opposition side of the House, I would support a similar amendment. Of course, I supported
	similar motions and amendments in the previous Parliament, as did my friends on the Front Bench, but they seem to have changed their position. It is also rather interesting that the shadow Ministers, when they were in government, took exactly the opposite position to the one they are taking today. It is the national union of Executives that we have to deal with tonight. Parliament—the mother of Parliaments—should decide the timetable, and it should do so through a House business committee. If that were the case, we would not have debates such as this one.
	I want to deal with some of the points that have not been touched on. Members have pointed out that business is listed as provisional, and of course that is always the case; it says that on the handy card showing the calendar. The only way there could be an extra sitting day is if business has not been proceeded with. If business had not been proceeded with, obviously the Budget could be on an earlier day. We therefore have to assume that business has not proceeded as the Leader of the House wanted.
	I should have taken the opportunity at the beginning of my speech to apologise to the House and to the Leader of the House for not being here early enough to hear all his comments. Unfortunately, I was in another part of the Palace and had made the real mistake—I apologise profusely for it—of listening to my Whips, who told me that this business would not start until after 7 o’clock. I will never make that mistake again.

Thomas Docherty: I wonder whether it has occurred to the hon. Gentleman that his Whips may not have been entirely helpful to him in suggesting the timing of the debate.

Peter Bone: No, that is an outrageous slur; I just put it down to incompetence. On a more serious note, the abuse from the Whips has already started, and I am still in the Chamber, so when we get out of the Chamber there will be even more. That is a bad thing for this House.
	Going to the heart of the matter, the real problem is that Prime Minister’s questions has gone down to one day a week on the Wednesday. If it were still two days a week on the Tuesday and the Thursday, it would not really matter what day the House rose on, because there would be an opportunity to scrutinise the Prime Minister close to the rising of the House.
	There is a principle involved that is not just to do with this motion. I gently say to the shadow Leader of the House that she is being a little opportunist in making a political point rather than taking the politics out of it, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) wanted to do. There is a strong argument for the House not rising for a recess on a Monday or a Tuesday other than in very exceptional cases. It should rise on a Wednesday or a Thursday, and then we would get rid of all these problems.

David Nuttall: My hon. Friend said that it would not make any difference if there were Prime Minister’s questions on a Tuesday and a Thursday, but in fact it would make a difference in this case. If there were Prime Minister’s questions on the Tuesday, the Budget would follow immediately afterwards. If the House then rose on the Thursday, that would mean that it rose on
	Maundy Thursday. As my hon. Friend shares my views about the Christian religion, I am sure he agrees that that would not be a sensible idea.

Peter Bone: I hate to disagree with my hon. Friend, but the timing of the Budget is entirely at the discretion of the Executive. They have chosen to have it so late and that has caused all these problems.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) made an absolutely first-class speech, as always, but drew completely the wrong conclusions.

Kevan Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that although the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) did make some very good and eloquent points, given the recent scandal over the adulteration of food, the Food Standards Agency should possibly look at Her Majesty’s Sandringham apple juice?

Peter Bone: I want to keep very closely to the subject of the motion, and I think that that is straying rather wide.
	I feel exceptionally strongly about this issue and the fact that Parliament—[Interruption.] The Whips are already having a go at me from a sedentary position. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands) asked why I was not here at the beginning of the debate. I have already explained that to the House. I am really annoyed by the attitude of the Whips in this place. That is what brings this House into disrepute. They do not care about Parliament; all they care about is getting Executive business through. They are shameful. I wish my private Member’s Bill had gone through, as that would have abolished them.

Alistair Carmichael: claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36.)
	The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr Speaker: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.
	The House having divided:

Ayes 222, Noes 53.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Amendment proposed: (a), leave out from ‘shall’ to end and add
	‘, notwithstanding the Resolution of 17 December 2012, sit on Wednesday 27 March and at its rising on that day adjourn until 15 April 2013.’.—(Ms Angela Eagle.)
	Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 53, Noes 222.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Main Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That this House shall sit on Friday 22 March.

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Charities

That the draft Charities (Incorporated Church Building Society) (England and Wales) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 22 January, be approved.—(Greg Hands.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Representation of the People

That the draft Representation of the People (Election Expenses Exclusion) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 30 January, be approved.—(Greg Hands.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Transport

That the draft Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations (Amendment) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 19 December 2012, be approved.—(Greg Hands.)
	The Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 13 March (Standing Order No. 41A).

Mr Speaker: I would ask, as I ordinarily do, Members who are for whatever reason not staying in the Chamber to leave quickly and quietly, affording the same courtesy to the Member who has the Adjournment debate that they would wish to be extended to themselves in similar circumstances.

DALGETY BAY RADIATION

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Greg Hands.)

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the patient but hard-pressed and increasingly angry residents of Dalgety Bay in Fife in my constituency. They are residents who discovered 18 months ago that the houses that were built 50 years ago were built near or above radiation-contaminated particles. They are residents who in the last 18 months have suffered the fencing off of their local beach. At the same time, their amenities have been cut, with some now not able to be used. They are increasingly looking to the Ministry of Defence and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency for answers and, indeed, action. They wish for the radiation-contaminated particles to be removed. They wish for a remedial action plan and clean-up plan to be agreed for the Dalgety Bay beach area, and they wish to be reassured not only about the amenity of their area, their house price values and their ability to use the beach, but about the safety and health of the people in the area.
	I have asked for this debate specifically because of the advice given in the last few weeks by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment—COMARE—which has published a report on Dalgety Bay. In its view, action to remedy and clean up the Dalgety Bay beach area has to be taken as quickly as possible. Residents in Dalgety Bay are increasingly angry because on other sites, particularly Almondbank in Perth—the Minister will know about this and may be able to comment on it in his response—action has been instructed and taken and is now under way, while we still await any clean-up of Dalgety Bay, any decision on how it will be funded and, indeed, any decision on who is responsible for the clean-up.

Lindsay Roy: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. Has he had any indication as to why there has been such a delay in taking up this very important issue on behalf of his constituents?

Gordon Brown: I will come to that. It is incontestable—indeed, nobody disputes this fact—that about 50 years ago, radiation-contaminated materials were dumped in the Dalgety Bay area. Nobody disputes the fact, either, that in the past few years, 3,400 particles of radiation-contaminated materials have been collected in the Dalgety Bay area by scientists and others, who have seen coastal erosion bring many of these materials to the surface. Nobody disputes also the fact that the safety risks associated with some of the finds are at a level that has made radiation experts increasingly worried. Indeed, five finds were above 76 megabecquerels, which, according to all radiation experts, constitutes a hazard that has to be dealt with.
	The problem is that, even though we have all these finds and materials, the action that we have expected to be taken on Dalgety Bay is still to happen. Does the Minister agree that we need action and that the Ministry of Defence and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency should now agree that the previously identified
	programme of work should proceed as quickly as possible? The medical evidence says that action should be taken as quickly as possible, but the process of dealing with this radiation contamination has slowed down to the point where people are increasingly worried about whether the agreed timetables will be upheld.
	As I have said, the reason why I have called for this debate is the medical evidence. If the Minister examines the medical evidence that has been provided to him and the residents of Dalgety Bay, he will see that the committee looked carefully at the health risks involved. Fortunately for the people in Dalgety Bay, the committee discovered that, although the radiation material was most likely to cause head or brain cancer, there was no higher incidence of those conditions in Dalgety Bay. It is also fortunate that, although rates of liver cancer are higher in the area, it is not usually identified with these radiated materials.
	The committee said that there are three reasons why action should be taken as quickly as possible, however, and recommended the quick implementation of a remediation action plan. One reason was the long life of the discovered materials, which means that they will have a substantial life if nothing is done about them. Secondly, the committee was worried about the dynamic process whereby, as a result of coastal erosion, the materials were coming to the surface in Dalgety Bay and posing a health hazard to the population. The third reason is the size and scale of the materials. Not only have 3,400 materials been discovered and examined, but such materials are coming to the surface at a rate of about 1,000 a year. I suggest to the Minister that he must now take seriously the size, dynamic nature and long life of the materials located in Dalgety Bay.
	I think that it was because of those things that the Ministry of Defence agreed in February last year to what was called an investigatory plan. The Defence Infrastructure Organisation agreed a timetable for action to be taken in the Dalgety Bay area. There was to be a review of the historical situation and of coastal processes. Then there was to be an investigatory report on the physical elements that made up the problem in the area. Then there was to be an assessment of that report, after which there was to be a review of the risks entailed. Then there was to be a set of options, which would be laid before us, on what needed to be done to remove the contamination. Then it was foreseen that there would be a plan that would deliver the area from the contamination.
	That was set down clearly in a document that the Minister must have before him this evening: the investigation plan of the Defence Infrastructure Organisation. Unfortunately, that plan has not been observed. The coastal processes report, which was promised in October, did not arrive. By the time I called this debate, there was no indication that it would arrive. I understand that it was sent to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency on Sunday of this week, but it was five months late, at a time when we are asking that action be taken immediately because of the health risks in the area.
	Work on the investigatory report itself was to have been finished in November; again there is work to be done by the Ministry of Defence, but that report is not yet available, even though it was promised by the end of January. The investigatory assessment has obviously not been done, because the investigatory report has not
	been completed. Many other promises have been made. We were told that between February and May, we would have the study of the options and the risk assessment work that had been done. We would then have the summary of what needed to be done as a whole, and an agreement on that. That timetable has now been completely disrupted by the failure to produce the initial reports.
	I have to say to the Minister that it is the Ministry of Defence that is responsible for these delays. The coastal processes report is a Ministry of Defence report that is going to be put to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. I see him looking at his civil servants. They will confirm that that is the case. It was agreed that the Ministry of Defence should do the investigatory report, not the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. Again, that has not been produced. It is now long delayed because of the Ministry of Defence’s failure to complete its work. The investigatory assessment was also to have been done by the Ministry of Defence and, as I understand it, that has not been done either. Next Monday, we have a meeting of the review group, the Dalgety Bay Forum, yet none of the reports except the coastal processes report seems to be available at this stage.

Thomas Docherty: I congratulate my right hon. Friend not only on securing this debate but on the leadership that he has shown on this issue in his community. He will obviously be aware that Helen Eadie and Fife council are backing his calls for action. Does he think that the Ministry of Defence should listen not only to him, as a Member of Parliament, but to the council and to the local MSP, who are all backing his call?

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is a real problem.
	I have a letter from the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois)—not the Minister who is replying to the debate—in response to my raising the question of radiation. In his letter, the Minister says:
	“Correspondence should be addressed to SEPA as the Agency, and not MOD”.
	The Ministry of Defence has failed to produce the report. It has failed to produce the investigation. It has not yet produced the investigatory assessment. At the same time, many people regard it as the initial polluter. For that Minister to say to a Member of Parliament that correspondence should be addressed to SEPA as the agency and not to the MOD is an abrogation of the Ministry’s responsibility in this matter.
	I put it to the Minister that if he was writing to the chairman of his local council or to a constituent who had raised questions about the health of constituents as a result of contamination identified with the Ministry of Defence, and if the Ministry had not produced the necessary reports, he would have to be very careful about telling the chairman of his council or any other representative official that correspondence on such a matter should not be addressed to the Ministry of Defence. I hope that he will apologise for that when he speaks this evening.
	The problem is deeper, however, and that is why I have had to come back again to raise the matter in the House. What has been omitted over the last 18 months is this fiction: the Ministry of Defence has refused to
	accept responsibility for the contamination of the area. The Ministry has persisted in saying that it does not yet accept that it was the original polluter in the area. We have evidence on the website of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency:
	“It is thought that the contamination originates from the residue of radium coated instrument panels from military aircraft…The radium used by the MoD was primarily in luminescent paints.”
	Then we have the letter sent to me by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, which states:
	“Works to identify other potential polluters at Dalgety Bay is continuing. However, to date, our investigation has not identified any other persons whom may have introduced the radium to the location.”
	When this matter kicked off 18 months ago, the Ministry of Defence asked the Scottish Environment Protection Agency for a report and asked who was responsible. The agency was very clear indeed about who was responsible—the Ministry of Defence. The MOD chose not to accept this advice and it has been looking for landowners, developers, builders, residents and other participants in the area who might have been responsible for its pollution, but there is absolutely no doubt about it. It comes back not just to a legal responsibility, as I will show later, but a moral responsibility for the MOD to accept that it dumped the material in the first place, that the material is there because it came from MOD aircraft and that the pollution is the direct effect of having dumped it there. Refusing to accept responsibility is angering people in Dalgety Bay, with good cause.
	Let me give a final reason why the Minister should stand before the House now and say that he will work closely with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency to get a remediation action plan under way so that work is completed by the end of the year. It is an irony that just at the time that the Ministry of Defence is refusing to accept responsibility for the contamination that exists in Dalgety Bay, a mile away at Rosyth dockyard, the MOD launched a consultation exercise two years ago and is examining whether the seven decommissioned submarines, four of them Polaris submarines, should be cut up and stored in the Rosyth area for years upon years. How is the MOD going to persuade the residents of Rosyth a mile away from Dalgety Bay that it should be entrusted with the safety and health of the local residents in decommissioning, breaking up and then storing submarines in Rosyth, when it cannot persuade the people of Dalgety Bay that the safety and health needs of the residents there are being taken seriously and it even refuses to admit its responsibility for the contamination while at the same time delaying the necessary remedial work?
	I urge the Minister to be very careful in what he says to the House this evening about what the Ministry of Defence is going to do on this matter. He will say that the Ministry has tried its best, spent money on investigations and is monitoring the work. I well know the speech he is going to make, but the fact is that it has not produced the reports in time, not admitted responsibility for the pollution, not agreed the options for cleaning it up and not yet agreed to fund the remedial work.
	The people of Fife county, whom I represent, have for years been servants of the Ministry of Defence. Rosyth dockyard and Rosyth naval base were set up 100
	years ago, and 15,000 people work there. They refitted the ships and the submarines in war time and in peace time, and they have been loyal in support of the defence needs of this nation. They have done well by the Ministry of Defence; it is time that the Ministry of Defence does well by the people of Fife.

Andrew Robathan: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) on securing a debate on Dalgety Bay once again. We last discussed the subject in November 2011, and I visited the bay on 31 January last year. I walked on the beach and met local residents in the sailing club and heard about its problems. I also met Professor Curran, the chief executive of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. I understand furthermore that the right hon. Gentleman had a meeting with the Secretary of State for an hour and more on this particular matter, so I do not think it is fair to say, as he suggests it is, that my Department has ignored the issues at Dalgety Bay, as we have not. Neither, for that matter, have we ignored the concerns of the local community and nor has the Ministry of Defence abdicated its responsibilities or sought to delay a decision on who is the polluter. I welcome the opportunity to explain how the MOD has actively been supporting SEPA over the last year or so.
	The Department has actively supported SEPA in fulfilling its statutory duty to inspect the area of concern. I am afraid that this is more than can be said of other parties who have had an interest in either the former Royal Naval Air Station Donibristle or indeed in the foreshore. That includes the developers mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, who have some responsibilities in this regard. Similarly, we have not acted inconsistently in our approach to sites that we formerly owned across Scotland.
	The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Almondbank, which is a going concern. It is still operating, and we have a commercial contract which states that we will hand it over after clearing up contamination. That is rather different from the situation in Dalgety Bay.

Gordon Brown: Is the Minister saying that the only reason he is taking no action on Dalgety Bay is that he has no such commercial contract in that instance?

Andrew Robathan: I will explain why we dispute much of what the right hon. Gentleman has said in a moment, but there is one thing that I particularly dispute. I know that when he was Prime Minister, and indeed when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, he was very profligate with public money. He was very willing to spend it, and then to leave us in the appalling financial condition in which we now find ourselves. I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that we take a rather more parsimonious and sensible view than I think he did when it comes to the spending of our constituents’ money.

Thomas Docherty: My right hon. Friend mentioned the issue of aircraft carriers. Does the Minister regret blowing £100 million on two U-turns?

Andrew Robathan: I think that you would rule me out of order if I pursued that point, Mr. Speaker, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, it was not the actions of a
	Conservative Government that led to the rather ridiculous contracts for the aircraft carriers, which we have been trying very hard to tie down in many ways.
	SEPA is the lead regulator in Scotland in relation to all matters pertaining to radioactively contaminated land. Notwithstanding that, my Department has undertaken voluntarily to assist SEPA and to deliver the necessary site investigation. That is in addition to the monthly beach monitoring, and it demonstrates how seriously we are taking the matter.
	It is worth repeating that, in the opinion of the Health Protection Agency, the risk to beach users remains very low. The agency is on record as stating that the risk of contracting a fatal cancer is less that 1 in 100 million, which is significantly lower than the level that the Health and Safety Executive considers to be the upper limit for an acceptable level of annual risk for members of the public. Recent investigations of the incidences of cancers in the Dalgety Bay area appear to support the HPA’s assessment. I note the recommendation of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment—which was mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman—that remediation should proceed, but this is a matter for SEPA, and it needs to be reviewed in the context of the risk posed.

Lindsay Roy: Is the Minister saying that this is some kind of modern hysteria, and that there is no real issue on the Dalgety Bay foreshore?

Andrew Robathan: I am saying that the risk to health is extremely low. That is not my judgment, because I am not a scientist; it is the judgment of the Health Protection Agency and others.
	As part of the monthly monitoring, contractors working for my Department have recovered and removed radioactive items from the foreshore, thereby ensuring that any potential risk is as low as reasonably practicable. We adopted that precautionary approach because it was consistent with the advice given by the Health Protection Agency, and provided a suitable safeguard while SEPA undertook its inspection. However, there appears to be a concerted effort in the media to circumvent SEPA’s statutory inspection by raising anxieties unnecessarily and calling for remediation. The press reporting of the recent investigations of cancers in the area appears to be a particularly egregious example. When I visited the area, the sailing club informed me that it seemed likely that it would have to cancel a regatta owing to heightened concern arising from media reports that did not reflect the low level of risk, and that people were unlikely to visit because they had read those reports.
	The proper course of action is to allow SEPA to complete its work and form an opinion on whether any of the land meets the statutory definition of radioactively contaminated land, on what needs to be done, and on who is responsible.
	We should bear it in mind that the royal naval air station at Donibristle was closed in 1959, 54 years ago, when the right hon. Gentleman and I were in short trousers and some Members of Parliament had not even been born. The publicly available records show an organised and systematic rundown of the various site activities, with a focus on the salvage and sale of assets. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the statutory regime requires that, if land is deemed to be radioactively
	contaminated, it is necessary to consider all the actions of later parties which may have contributed to or caused contamination. The subsequent redevelopment for housing as part of the Dalgety Bay new town, together with the construction of what is now the boat park and sailing club, would have involved significant demolition, site clearance, infilling and land reconfiguration. This is supported by contemporary photographs and plans. Indeed, a refuse tip appears at what is now the headland in the 1964 Ordnance Survey plan, which was approximately five years after the developer took over the land. It is the areas of the headland and boat park where radium has been identified, and that could go some way to explaining either the current or historical occurrence of such material on the beach.
	The presence of demolition material, including bricks, roofing material and other debris, is consistent with the demolition and site clearance that preceded the redevelopment of the Donibristle site. There is no documentary evidence that the MOD attempted to clear the land through demolition.
	My officials have previously raised concerns as to whether “designation” of the land is appropriate. While I fully recognise that the very mention of radioactivity gives cause for concern among some of the right hon. Gentleman’s constituents, the current view held by the Health Protection Agency remains, as I have already stated on at least two occasions, that the risk is very low.
	Nevertheless, given that items, often referred to as “particles”, with a relatively high level of radioactivity were found beneath the beach in October and November 2011, the HPA felt there was a need for a detailed risk assessment. The comprehensive investigation undertaken by my Department, the results of which are to be released very soon, will enable SEPA to undertake a full and conclusive assessment.

Gordon Brown: Will, therefore, the investigation report, which is the basis on which SEPA will be able to make the decisions, be before the Dalgety Bay Forum when it meets next Monday? Otherwise, we will face considerable delays before this report can be examined. Will the Minister also accept that, despite all the information he is trying to give us, SEPA has already said its investigation has not indicated any other persons who may have introduced radium to the location?

Andrew Robathan: First, there has indeed been a delay. One of the problems was with accessing some of the land, which delayed things. I understand that SEPA has yet to publish the analytical data, which delayed our factual report, but we are meeting with SEPA on 14 March, which will be next—

Mr Speaker: Thursday.

Andrew Robathan: Yes, Thursday. Thank you, Mr Speaker. At that meeting we will hand over the factual report and discuss the way forward. I will not say that will take place on Monday, but it will take place next Thursday. [Interruption.] Indeed, it would be possible to move the meeting of the Dalgety Bay Forum.
	So my officials have already agreed to meet SEPA on 14 March to ensure the prompt transfer of the factual findings. It will then be for SEPA to make its determination as to whether or not any land at Dalgety
	Bay meets the requirements for designation as radioactive contaminated land, based on all the scientific and technical evidence.
	My officials have raised a number of concerns with SEPA in connection with its approach, in order to provide clarity on the MOD’s position and avoid any future misunderstanding. These included, for example, the lack of consideration of activities other than those of the MOD that could have caused, or knowingly permitted, the contamination to be present within the foreshore. SEPA confirmed that it was now carrying out an investigation to identify all the potential appropriate persons, should any land at Dalgety Bay be designated as radioactive contaminated land.
	In conclusion, I am as keen as the right hon. Gentleman for the issue of contamination at Dalgety Bay to be resolved to the satisfaction of all concerned, and I do
	understand the concerns of his constituents—who would not be concerned? However, the risk remains very low.
	The right hon. Gentleman contends that the MOD has a responsibility for remediation, but this is not his determination to make. I should point out that, perhaps, for some 13 years it could have been his determination to make, however, but he did not choose so to do. It is for the professionals at SEPA to establish the need for remediation and who is liable for the cost, based on a proper scientific and technical assessment. However, we have, and will continue to, assist SEPA in every way possible.
	In closing, may I say how pleased I am to see the right hon. Gentleman in the House?
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.